Resolve conflicts by copying live field into Scenario, keeping Scenario value, or merging with a custom merged_value.
Resolve one conflict: accept_object copies the live field into the Scenario, keep_spec retains the Scenario value, and merge sets merged_value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| spec_id | Yes | ||
| resolution | Yes | ||
| conflict_id | Yes | ||
| merged_value | No | ||
| expected_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the effect of each resolution mode, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or how expected_version guards against stale updates.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity contributes to missing semantic detail.
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 mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to source conflict_id, what expected_version represents, whether merged_value is mandatory for merge, or what a successful resolution returns.
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 partially explains the resolution enum and hints that merge uses merged_value, but it leaves spec_id, conflict_id, expected_version, and the conditions under which merged_value is required undocumented.
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 action ('Resolve one conflict') and enumerates the three resolution modes with their distinct effects. It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like yaaif_agent_spec_conflicts, though it could more explicitly tie it to agent spec conflicts.
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 usage when a conflict exists and offers resolution options, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, how to obtain conflict_id, or any prerequisites like listing conflicts first. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.