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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, and destructive. The description adds the requirement of review scope and reviewer role, which is a behavioral prerequisite not captured by annotations, and clarifies the effect is recording a governance decision. However, it does not elaborate on the extent of side effects or what changes are made, which could be important given the destructive hint.

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 two sentences that are concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with a clarifying distinction. There is no wasted language, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The description is incomplete for a destructive mutation tool. It does not explain the difference between 'resolved' and 'accepted_risk' statuses, the exact state changes to the contradiction, or potential side effects. Given the destructive hint and lack of an output schema, these gaps are significant for correct invocation.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage (only idempotencyKey has a description), the tool description should compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. It only implies the existence of a claim and a contradiction, leaving the meaning of claimId, contradictionId, and status (resolved vs accepted_risk) to the schema, which lacks descriptions for these. The description adds minimal parameter semantics.

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's action: resolving or explicitly accepting the risk of a claim contradiction. It also distinguishes this from final document approval, which helps an agent differentiate it from approval-related sibling tools. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides a prerequisite (requires review scope and a reviewer role) and hints that it is not for final document approval, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or spell out conditions for choosing this tool over others, leaving some inference to the agent.

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