evolve_apply_conflicted_pr

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

The description discloses concrete behavioral details beyond annotations: it picks the oldest conflicated PR by default, validates ownership/state, resolves conflicts, runs the suite, pushes the same branch, and lands into main via protected merge flow. It also explicitly states side-effect negations (no new PR, no roadmap-issue marking). No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with a concise one-sentence summary, then expands into mode-specific behavior. Every sentence adds useful operational detail; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers selection logic, validation behavior, the operational pipeline, and explicit exclusions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 for pr_number is 0%, but the description fully explains its semantics: pr_number=0 triggers automatic pick of the oldest eligible conflicted PR, while a numeric value validates and targets a specific PR. This adds essential meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Repair an already-open applier PR that currently has merge conflicts.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do (doesn't open a new PR or mark a roadmap issue applied), which distinguishes it from siblings like evolve_apply or evolve_mark_roadmap_issue_applied.

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 description gives clear context: use this tool when there is an already-open applier PR in a conflicated GitHub merge state, and it explains the two selection modes via pr_number. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the scenario is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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