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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, so the danger is signposted structurally. The description adds the meaningful governance constraint that a human must pick the strategy, but it never says which memories are destroyed, whether resolution is reversible, or that the default strategy is mark_conflict.

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 short sentences, both load-bearing: the first states the action, the second states the precondition. No filler and the action is front-loaded.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with five parameters and no enum on resolution_strategy, the description says nothing about what consequences a resolution has on the conflicting memories or which strategies are lossy. Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the destructive semantics are a substantial omission.

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 all five parameters including strategy names are already documented in structured form. The description adds nothing beyond the word 'listed' pointing at conflict_id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (resolve) and resource (memory conflict), and the qualifier 'listed' signals the conflict must already exist rather than be created here, which distinguishes it from list_memory_conflicts. It stops short of saying what 'resolving' actually does to the underlying memories.

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?

'Intended only for when the user/admin explicitly chooses a resolution strategy' is a real precondition and an exclusion, not just a restatement. It does not name list_memory_conflicts as the required discovery step in the description (that only appears in the schema) or say what to do when no strategy is chosen.

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