Vcs Merge Resolution

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

The description adds 'simulate or resolve' which gives some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not clarify side effects, whether simulation is a dry-run, or what 'resolve' mutates. Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, but the description does not elaborate.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no filler. Efficient and clear.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, two modes (simulate/resolve), and no output schema. The description omits return value, effects of the strategy parameter, and any prerequisites. This is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states a specific action: simulate or resolve state memory graph conflicts during Git branch merging. The resource is well-defined and distinct from siblings like vcs_branch_sync or merge_project_db.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'when merging Git branches', but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided. It does not guide when to use this vs. vcs_branch_sync or other graph operations.

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