Reconcile duplicate user templates

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond sparse annotations: apply uses verified preconditions, a shared write lock, a recovery journal, and explicitly states files are retained. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and gives useful safety details, though it could mention side effects of rollback.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, with the first front-loading the core action modes and the second adding critical safety mechanisms. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 complex tool with 7 parameters, a nested expectedState object, and no schema descriptions, this description is too sparse. It omits guidance on how to fill required fields, what the exact duplicate conditions are, and what the output schema represents. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional documentation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions the mode concept (dry-run/apply/rollback) but does not explain the six required parameters such as reconcileId, expectedState, canonicalTemplateId, or the nested structure of expectedState. The agent cannot derive parameter meaning from the description.

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 the tool performs dry-run, apply, or rollback of an exact duplicate-archive transaction. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reconciliation via archiving, with a specific verb and resource.

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?

Usage is implied through 'duplicate-archive transaction' and the mention of dry-run/apply/rollback modes, but no explicit comparison to alternatives like figure_library_archive or figure_library_diff is provided. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool.

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