memory_personal_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple mutation verb by explicitly stating that one winner is confirmed or merged and that other memories are marked stale, wrong, or scoped with audit links. It does not mention reversibility or consequences for existing links, but the core side effects are clearly disclosed.

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 a single dense sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful operational detail, making it both concise and efficiently structured.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions. A single sentence is not enough to cover the operational nuances like how merging works, what values loser_status accepts, or how valid_until interacts with conflict resolution. The output schema exists but does not fill the semantic gaps in the parameters.

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, but it only conceptually maps to winner_id and loser_ids/loser_status. It does not explain the meaning or role of reason, scope, merged_value, or valid_until, leaving an agent unable to determine how to populate those fields correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve'), names the resource ('personal-memory conflict'), and explains the expected outcome: confirming or merging a winner and marking other memories stale, wrong, or scoped with audit links. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the 'personal-memory conflict' framing is specific enough to distinguish it from generic memory update/correct tools.

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 clearly implies this tool should be used to resolve personal-memory conflicts, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like memory_conflicts or memory_personal_review. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the intended scenario is reasonably inferable.

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