Resolve merge conflicts

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, and the description adds substance beyond that: choosing a side that deleted the slide/file removes it, and resolving the last conflict rewrites the sync base. Those are exactly the hidden side effects an agent needs. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the operation is reversible.

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 action and the choice semantics, then scope, then side effects, then next steps — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and slightly jargon-heavy ("the web's", "sync base") and would read better split into a short scope sentence, but every clause carries information.

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 destructive five-parameter mutation with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers choice semantics, scoping precedence, deletion consequences, and the resulting state change. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this safely is absent.

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 only 40% schema coverage this description has to carry the load, and it does: `choice` enum values are explained semantically (ours/theirs/both, including the "ours first, then edit" blending note), `slide` is anchored as 1-based per deck_conflicts, `which` as the conflict index within the file, and the interaction/precedence between path, slide, and which is spelled out. Only `dir` is left to the schema, which already describes it.

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 verb+resource ("Settle conflicts") is specific and immediately followed by the meaning of each choice value, so the agent knows exactly what operation this performs. It also signals downstream siblings (deck_check, deck_publish) that position it in the sync workflow, making it easy to distinguish from read-only tools like deck_conflicts or deck_sync_status.

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 scoping rules (path+slide, path+which, path alone = all conflicts in file, no path = every file) give concrete conditions for narrowing the call, and the trailing "Then deck_check and deck_publish" route the agent onward. What is missing is an explicit precondition such as "call deck_conflicts first to obtain the index"; it only alludes to this with "as deck_conflicts says."

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