Pull web edits

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

Annotations already cover safety hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds substantial beyond-schema behavior: conflict markers, the `clean: false` flag that blocks publishing, and backups written to .kadal-deck/sync/backup/. This tells the agent what the operation leaves behind and how failures surface.

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 merge behavior is front-loaded, followed by the conflict-marker consequence, then the alternative-routing advice. Dense but every sentence carries decision-relevant information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description still surfaces the key result signal (`clean: false`) and backup location. For a 6-param, open-world merge tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 67%, and the description adds real meaning for two parameters: `version` (pulls a specific version, e.g. one a forced publish replaced) and `strategy` (settles every conflict one way, but only on user request). It doesn't clarify `dryRun`, `dir`, or `slug`, though the schema covers those.

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 ('merge the newest web version ... into the deck's files, slide by slide'), plus the baseline it merges against ('the last sync'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling conflict-reading (deck_conflicts) and conflict-settling (deck_resolve) tools.

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 names alternatives and the conditions that select them: read conflicts with deck_conflicts and settle each with deck_resolve. It also warns that strategy ours/theirs should be used 'only when the person says so', giving a when-not-to-use rule.

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