resolve_conflict

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states marking resolved does not delete history and returns the entry, but lacks disclosure on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies other nodes), required permissions, or validation of conflict existence.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and key constraint (without deleting history). Every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, description mentions return value ('resolved conflict entry'). Fits well with sibling tools (list_conflicts, get_node_history). Lacks mention of necessary preconditions like edge existence, but overall sufficient for a simple mutation.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add meaningful details beyond schema: repeats 'optional human-readable note' for resolution_note, which is already in the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool marks a conflict edge as resolved without deleting history, uses active verb ('mark') and specific resource ('contradiction or update edge'), and distinguishes from deletion. It also provides a use case ('after deciding how competing memories should be interpreted').

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 to use after resolution decision, implying workflow positioning. Does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tools like list_conflicts and get_node_history suggests cleanup step.

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