quipu_merge_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'touches no store' and adds behavior the annotations cannot: validation of the choice against the row, and the return shape {decisions, presentation, view}. It does not detail what happens on an invalid choice (error vs. no-op), which is the remaining 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then choices, then the persistence pointer. Dense and telegraphic; 'value (with values)' is slightly cryptic, and the final 'Apply with...' sentence could have been merged more cleanly, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the three return keys and stating the validation behavior. The only shortfall is not describing failure behavior or the meaning of 'presentation' and 'view'.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already carries much of the load, but the description adds genuine meaning to the enum: 'ours, theirs, base, both (only within sh:maxCount), value (with values), defer', including a cardinality constraint on 'both' and the coupling of 'value' with the values array. 'row' and 'by' are left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Record one choice on one row of a merge decisions file'. It also disambiguates from the sibling pair by noting the in-memory nature and pointing to quipu_merge_apply as the persisting step, so the agent knows this is the decide-step, not the write-step.

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?

Explicitly says 'touches no store. Apply with quipu_merge_apply', which routes the agent to the follow-up tool for persistence. It does not explicitly contrast with quipu_merge_decisions (the producer of the decisions file), so the full when/when-not picture is only implied.

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