ifcx_resolve_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it fails to disclose behavioral traits: what happens to the draft session? Is it mutated? Are there side effects? What is the return value? The description is too vague.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified, lacking necessary details. It earns a middle score for brevity.

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?

Given five required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool is very incomplete. The agent lacks enough context to select or invoke it correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the five required parameters. The agent has no help understanding what each parameter represents, despite the enum on 'kind'.

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 clearly states the action ('Apply a chosen conflict resolution opinion') and the resource ('a draft session'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ifcx_detect_conflicts (detection) and ifcx_changeset_add_opinion (adding opinion). However, the term 'opinion' is not further clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., conflict detection or opinion creation). The description does not indicate that prior steps like ifcx_detect_conflicts or ifcx_changeset_add_opinion are needed.

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