resolve_location_assertionAccept or reject a contested location assertion. The submitting client cannot resolve its own contested claim without explicit user approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision | Yes | ||
| rationale | Yes | ||
| assertion_id | Yes | ||
| user_approved | No | ||
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as non-read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that the submitting client cannot resolve its own contested claim without explicit user approval, which clarifies the approval requirement beyond the schema's user_approved default.
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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the added approval constraint earns its place.
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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It captures the approval prerequisite but does not explain the workflow around contested assertions, the role of idempotency, or how a caller should obtain the assertion_id and what happens after resolution.
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 indirectly explains 'decision' ('accept or reject') and hints at 'user_approved' (explicit user approval), but it does not add meaning for assertion_id, rationale, or idempotency_key, leaving most parameters semantically under-specified.
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 action ('Accept or reject') on a specific resource ('a contested location assertion'), and the title reinforces it. It is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar resolution tools like record_resolution.
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 when to use the tool: when a location assertion is contested and the submitting client needs explicit user approval to resolve it. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some selection ambiguity against siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are separated by resource and action, but the classification cluster (affirm_subject_classification, propose_subject_reclassification, reopen_subject_classification, get_subject_classification) and the three resolve_subject* tools require close reading to distinguish. Long descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong member of those clusters.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun in snake_case (create_deliberation, list_reviews_by_visibility, resolve_subject_type, set_review_visibility). Minor deviations such as bare 'fetch' and 'search' and mixed verbs like affirm vs propose vs reopen are readable and do not break the convention.
34 tools substantially exceeds the 25+ threshold even for a server with multiple subdomains. The many classification, type, and location variants add cognitive load, and several could be consolidated or hidden behind a smaller workflow-oriented surface.
The set covers the main lifecycles: review save/fetch/assess/delete/visibility, subject resolution/enrichment/correction, classification with voting/reopening, deliberations, locations, and vocabulary management. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct full-subject getter and no update to review text, but these appear intentional in an immutable-review design.