memory_fact_resolve

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the human-check precondition and the two outcome branches (resolved/no_contender), but since an output schema exists, the return-value text is largely redundant and it adds little about what is actually destroyed beyond what the schema's accept parameter explains.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the action and precondition come first, followed by the return shape. The return block is arguably redundant given the output schema, but the whole thing is tight and waste-free.

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?

For a destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the key context an agent needs: that this resolves a contested slot and requires prior human confirmation. Nothing essential is missing, though it could state the consequence of accepting vs discarding more explicitly.

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% and all three parameters (entity, attribute, accept) are documented in the schema, including the history-keeping behavior of accept. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (settle) and resource (a CONTESTED fact slot), which signals it handles only the contested-resolution path rather than general fact writes handled by siblings like memory_fact_set or memory_supersede. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"after checking with the human" supplies a clear precondition/context for when this tool is appropriate, and "CONTESTED fact slot" narrows the trigger condition. No explicit when-not cases or named alternatives are given, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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