resolve_conflicts

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the meaning of each resolution value, the fact that it returns updated conflict records, and that 'revert' un-resolves rather than destroys. It could go further on failure behavior, but the core mutation semantics are clear.

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?

Three sentences carry the full useful payload: what the tool does, how the resolution values behave, what is returned, the sequencing with sibling tools, and the primary when-not-to-use case. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it explains the input semantics, the return value, the correct place in the merge workflow, and the situation where a different tool should be used. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and integrate it with the surrounding merge lifecycle.

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 fully describes mergeId, resolution, and conflictIds. The description restates the enum semantics and workflow but adds little beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; for example, both already specify that conflictIds come from the merge's conflicts list.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Resolve one or more merge conflicts by picking a side, or revert them to unresolved.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming get_merge, apply_merge, and get_conflict_file and explaining how they fit into the workflow.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance: repeat resolution until get_merge shows no unresolved conflicts, then call apply_merge. It also provides a direct exclusion: use get_conflict_file when you need to inspect a conflict's content first, not resolve_conflicts.

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