Resolve DevOps Center Merge Conflict

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the meaning of the resolution strategies and the prerequisite. However, it doesn't describe any side effects, return values, or what happens to the conflict record after resolution. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a clear first sentence for the main action and a second paragraph for parameter details. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded. It earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, the prerequisite, and parameter semantics. It does not describe the return value or postconditions, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, but the description adds critical semantics by explaining the exact meaning of each resolution enum value ('ours' = keep our changes, 'theirs' = accept incoming, 'manual' = already resolved). This goes beyond the schema's bare field descriptions and helps the agent choose correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Marks') and clearly identifies the resource ('merge conflict in DevOps Center'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_detect_devops_merge_conflict by focusing on resolution. The resolution strategy parameter is explicitly explained.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use after manually resolving conflicts in the source control system.' This clearly indicates the prerequisite and context. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a niche resolution action, the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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