Reconcile owner edits of a spec-loop feature

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

With annotations declaring a non-readonly but non-destructive and non-open-world operation, the description adds substantive behavior: it applies a JSON Patch, converts reported items into open questions, restores the projection exactly, preserves owner files under .spec-loop/overwritten/<time>/, and records lastVerify. It does not cover failure behavior or what happens when the applied/reported count invariant is violated.

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 purpose is front-loaded and there is no wasted filler. However, it is one long dense sentence, making the many behaviors and the invariant harder to parse than a more structured description would be.

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 complex mutation tool with six parameters, nested objects, annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies the core flow, preservation path, and count invariant. It still leaves a gap around explicit sibling selection guidance and mismatch/error behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful cross-parameter invariant: applied + reported must equal the pending count from diff, and it clarifies that reported items become open questions, which goes beyond the schema text.

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: 'Close a reconciliation of the owner edits of a spec-loop feature', then enumerates applying the JSON Patch, turning reported items into open questions, restoring the projection, and recording lastVerify. It references diff's pending count, but does not explicitly contrast itself with the patch or diff siblings.

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 workflow is only implied through 'pending count from diff', suggesting this tool is used after diff. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, nor a clear alternative among diff, patch, or validate.

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