evolve_apply_conflicted_pr

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the child resolves conflicts, runs the suite, and force-pushes the SAME PR branch, and explicitly bounds behavior with what it never does (never merges, never opens a new PR, never marks a roadmap issue applied). It also explains the downstream daemon landing sweep, giving an agent the full lifecycle picture.

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 the selection, behavior, and downstream-sweep details are ordered logically across three short paragraphs. It is information-dense with dense backtick formatting, but every sentence carries distinct information rather than repetition.

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 PR-repair tool with one argument, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: selection logic, validation criteria, side effects, and explicit non-actions. Nothing required to invoke 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 coverage is 0% and the schema only shows an integer default of 0, but the description fully compensates by explaining the two distinct modes: pr_number=0 picks the oldest conflicted same-repo applier PR, while a concrete number validates that specific PR is open, applier-owned, and conflicted.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: repairing an already-open applier PR that has merge conflicts. This distinctly separates it from creation-oriented siblings like evolve_apply or evolve_apply_roadmap_issue, so an agent can route to it without opening a schema.

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 clearly describes the trigger situation (an applier PR with conflicts) and details both invocation modes, including the pr_number=0 default selection rule. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the no-conflict case, so guidance is strong but not fully comparative.

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