scf_resolve_document_section

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description complements that by adding the editor role requirement, the two state-dependent decision branches, and the 409 error behavior. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences convey the action, role, the four choices grouped by state, and the error condition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the core behavior, role, state logic, and error handling. It does not describe the response payload, but with no output schema expected, the missing return information is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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 the choice parameter already explaining the conflict versus retirement pairing. The description reinforces that pairing and adds the 409 error outcome, but it does not substantially expand on what the schema already documents for parameters like org_id or document_id.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Resolve one section's merge state.' It also identifies the required role (editor) and distinguishes this from generic document edits by naming the specific choice semantics, which differentiates it clearly from siblings like scf_update_document_section.

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 clearly states when to use which choice: conflict choices versus retirement choices, and warns that the wrong pair yields a 409. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the choice-pair guidance gives strong contextual direction.

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