workspace_resolve_conflict

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

The description discloses that this is a complex operation that overwrites the conflict and requires the full entity body. However, without annotations, it does not fully disclose the impact (e.g., whether it creates a new version, locks the workspace, or has side effects). Some transparency but gaps remain.

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 concise with two sentences and a note, all front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant content.

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?

Given the complexity of conflict resolution and the absence of an output schema, the description should cover return behavior and error conditions. It warns about complexity and advises UI review but does not explain what the tool returns or potential error scenarios. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 each parameter described. The description adds context by emphasizing that entityJson must be the full entity body, but this largely mirrors the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance meaning.

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 clearly states that the tool resolves a merge conflict for a workspace entity, specifying the action (resolve) and resource (workspace entity). It distinguishes itself from other workspace tools by being the only one focused on conflict resolution.

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 implies preconditions (full entity body required) and advises reviewing the UI first, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., workspace_sync) or when not to use it. Guidance is present but limited.

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