resolve

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: omitting a current head causes failure, replica calls queue instead of writing, the head set is rechecked under the write lock, and the call rejects heads appearing mid-decision. It also states the reply string, which is essential because there is no output schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, precondition, required parameter semantics, replica behavior, race-condition handling, and output format. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains 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?

For a destructive, multi-condition resolution tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use it, how to select keep/discard, what happens on a replica, how races are handled, and what the reply or refusal looks like. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 reinforces the keep/discard semantics and the all-or-nothing discard requirement, but it mostly restates what the schema already says rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 tool's purpose: settling an item with more than one current head, i.e., what get reports as DIVERGED. It names the specific verb, resource, and trigger condition, and distinguishes this from normal revision tools by tying it to the divergence state.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool (when get reports DIVERGED) and gives preconditions like reading history first and never guessing which head is real. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with revise or retract.

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