resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses replica queuing ('queued for the main machine' is not an error), rechecking under the write lock causing loud failure, and the exact success/refusal reply text.

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 carries operational information: purpose, preconditions, replica behavior, concurrency, and response format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then covers failure modes.

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 mutable, concurrency-sensitive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, failure semantics, replica behavior, and return text. An agent has enough to select and 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, keep, and discard. The description operationalizes keep as 'surviving revision hash' and discard as 'every other current head', but this mostly restates the schema, with no additional parameter format or value constraints.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'settles an item with more than one current head' and ties it to the exact state 'what get reports as DIVERGED'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get, which reports divergence, and revise, which creates divergent versions.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('what get reports as DIVERGED') and instructs the agent to 'Read history first; never guess which head is real'. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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