resolve_sync_conflict

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

The description honestly declares the tool as a 'Stub', making it clear that it is not implemented/functional. This is transparent behavior disclosure beyond the absence of annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wordiness. The critical info (stub, alternative) is front-loaded and unambiguous.

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 stub tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent not to use it and points to the correct tool. No output schema needed.

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 50%, but the description adds no parameter meaning. It only redirects usage, so it fails to compensate for the missing param descriptions.

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 'Stub' and redirects to another tool, indicating it's a placeholder. It does not describe what the tool would do if functional, so clarity is moderate.

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 'use correct on the entity for manual resolution today', providing direct guidance on when not to use this tool and which alternative to use.

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