memory_contradict

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

The description discloses important traits beyond annotations: 'Mutates store' (write operation), 'old NEVER deleted' (non-destructive), and 'linked via a `contradicts` edge' (structural change). Annotations are minimal (non-readOnly, non-destructive), so description adds significant value.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the core purpose. Every word 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?

With 3 params, full schema coverage, and output schema present, the description adequately covers core behavior. Could add error conditions or preconditions, but not critical.

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 coverage is 100% and description adds context: 'stored as a new record; the old record is preserved and linked via a `contradicts` edge.' This clarifies relationships between 'id' and 'new_fact', exceeding baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mark a record contradicted; new fact stored as a NEW record (old NEVER deleted). Mutates store.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_capture and memory_consolidate by emphasizing contradiction and preservation of old records.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for contradicting an existing record, but lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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