Resolve Conflict Keep Memory

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that canonical memory is not edited, but it does not disclose what state changes occur (e.g., where the decision is recorded, side effects). Some behavioral context is added beyond annotations, but more would be helpful.

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 sentence of 12 words, extremely concise and front-loaded with the key action and constraint. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details about return values, prerequisites, or what 'keep' means as a string, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'id', 'keep', 'reviewer', or 'recommendation_id' represent or how they should be used. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 records a reviewed keep decision for a conflict and explicitly distinguishes it by noting it does not edit canonical memory. This verb+resource+scope is specific and differentiates from siblings like memory.conflict_dismiss or memory.conflict_merge_proposal.

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 implies use when a conflict has been reviewed and a keep decision is made, and it clarifies that canonical memory is not edited. While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use given the sibling list.

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