resolve_conflict_tool

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It identifies the action ('Mark a conflict as resolved') and discloses one behavioral detail (project root auto-detection from git), but it does not say whether the operation is reversible, idempotent, or what happens to the underlying conflict record. For a state-changing tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short parts: a one-sentence purpose and a compact Args block. It has no filler and leads with the most important behavioral statement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the invocation essentials: what to mark, what arguments mean, and which are optional. The main missing piece is behavioral context (idempotency/reversibility), but that is largely already accounted for in the behavioral-transparency score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter gets meaning beyond its name/title. It gives an example for 'resolution', clarifies 'conflict_id', and specifies that 'project' is optional with git-root auto-detection.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Mark'), a specific resource ('conflict'), and a target state ('resolved'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool accomplishes. It is also clearly distinct from the sibling memory_* tools, which operate on memory rather than conflict resolution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool should be used when a conflict has been resolved and needs to be recorded, but it never states this explicitly or mentions alternatives/exclusions. Since none of the listed siblings are conflict-related, the lack of explicit alternative routing is not fatal, but the guidance is still only implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.