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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds what actually gets destroyed ('the other is closed and facts that depended on it are superseded'), the 7-day hiding behavior for 'investigar', and that por_usuario records who decided. This is exactly the side-effect detail a mutation tool needs.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence before the Args block, and the per-argument lines are dense with necessary detail rather than filler. The docstring-style 'Args:' formatting is slightly listy, but every line carries needed information given the zero schema coverage.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never states what the call returns (e.g. the resulting state or any confirmation), which is the one remaining gap. On all other axes - when to use, side effects, and full parameter semantics - it is complete for a destructive mutation tool.

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 carries the full load and delivers: contradiction_id provenance, per-enum semantics for each of the four resolution values, the conditional requirement of relation_id under 'vigente', and the meaning of por_usuario. No parameter is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('resolve a world-model contradiction: two current relations that cannot both be true') with a concrete example. An agent can tell this apart from query_world_model (which finds contradictions) and get_next_question (which surfaces them) without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says contradiction_id comes from query_world_model or get_next_question, and defines the four resolution modes with their intent. It stops short of naming when another sibling (e.g. answer_question, decide_merge_proposal) is the right choice instead, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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