GTM: Resolve conflict

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

Annotations only declare non-readonly, non-destructive, open-world; the description adds genuinely new behavioral content by explaining that keep='base' takes the newer published state, i.e. one side's change is discarded. It does not state whether the resolution is reversible, whether it re-runs the sync, or what is returned, which keeps it off a 5. Note a mild tension: replacing the published state with keep='workspace' has a side effect that destructiveHint=false arguably understates.

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 compact passage, front-loaded with the verb and the triggering sibling, then the option semantics. The trailing "(e.g. type 'tag', id '42')" partly duplicates the enum examples already present in the schema, making it the one marginally removable clause.

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 six-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the decision the agent cannot infer (which side wins), the entity identity, and the precondition. It omits any statement of what the call returns or how errors surface, which is the main residual gap.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: the `keep` enum has no schema description at all, and the description supplies its semantics, while also pinning down `type`/`id` provenance ("from the conflict", "as in gtm_workspace_status / gtm_sync_workspace") with a concrete example. Only the account/container/workspace scoping params are left entirely to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Resolves a merge conflict") and anchors it to a named sibling ("after gtm_sync_workspace"), so an agent knows exactly which operation triggers it. It also disambiguates the two modes of resolution inline, which distinguishes it from generic entity tools like gtm_save_entity or gtm_revert_entity.

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 phrase "after gtm_sync_workspace" establishes the precondition and the workflow position, and the keep values spell out the two decision branches. It falls short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. what to do instead when no conflict exists, or how to inspect conflicts via gtm_workspace_status), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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