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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the concrete side effect: 'The losing claim is then rewritten (or removed) so the tree no longer contradicts itself'. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the mutation.

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 short, front-loaded with purpose, and includes the critical usage condition early. The closing phrase 'do not leave a conflict resolved without calling this' is slightly awkward but not bloated.

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?

Given a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the required timing, the key parameter, and the side effect. The schema fully covers the remaining parameters, including the new_claim alternative, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does clarify that 'winner' is the node id of the correct claim, but it mostly reinforces what the schema already documents rather than adding new meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve an open memory conflict'. It also gives the exact prerequisite ('AFTER the user says which claim is correct') and the key parameter semantics ('winner' = node id). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like conflicts or superseded.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: after the user confirms which claim is correct, and says not to leave a conflict resolved without calling it. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer alternatives, but the timing condition is a clear usage guardrail.

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