dismiss_contradiction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait—that an audit record of the decision is preserved—but omits permissions required, reversibility, rate limits, and other side effects of the dismissal.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and its audit-trail outcome. There is no wasted wording, and the core information is presented immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must be self-sufficient, but it lacks details about authorization requirements, what happens to the contradiction record's status, and whether the action is reversible. It covers the core action and audit aspect but leaves substantive gaps for a 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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Dismisses') and resource ('a contradiction record as acceptable or non-actionable'), making the action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like resolve_contradiction, review_contradiction, or reopen_contradiction, which an agent must differentiate.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as resolve_contradiction or review_contradiction. The phrase 'as acceptable or non-actionable' hints at a condition but does not constitute clear usage instructions or exclusions.

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