p4_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Resolve merge conflicts' without revealing what happens to files, whether it modifies the workspace, how strategies affect the outcome, or any side effects. This is essentially a tautology of the tool name and provides no behavioral insight beyond the obvious action.

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 extremely concise (one short phrase) but is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters and an enum. It lacks structure and does not earn its place because it provides minimal value over the tool name. It is not appropriately sized for the complexity of the operation.

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 tool that likely modifies files (resolving conflicts) and has four parameters including a strategy enum, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'resolve' entails, how strategies work, the role of changelist, or what the expected outcome is. Without an output schema, the description must cover these aspects but does not.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (files, strategy, changelist, workspacePath) are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per calibration, with high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a clear verb and resource: 'Resolve merge conflicts'. It is specific enough to indicate the action, and while it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like p4_merge, the term 'resolve' is distinct from 'merge' in Perforce terminology. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the action without any context about preconditions (e.g., having a merge conflict), when to choose a strategy, or how it relates to other tools like p4_merge or p4_revert. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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