memory_fact_resolve

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the human-confirmation precondition and the failure shape ({resolved:false, reason:'no_contender'}). It does not, however, elaborate on the destructive consequences beyond what the schema's 'accept' description already says.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but naming the 'no_contender' failure shape is still worth the space, so it stays efficient overall.

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 3-required-param mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the purpose, the human-confirmation precondition, and the failure mode. Return-value detail is rightly left to the output schema. A bit more on alternatives and destructive consequence would complete it.

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 carries the parameter meaning, including the accept True/False semantics. The description adds only the notion of a 'parked contender' and the human-check context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: settling a 'CONTESTED fact slot'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like memory_fact_set and memory_fact_get, which imply setting/getting rather than resolving a contested state. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

It gives one implied precondition: this is only for a slot that is already contested, and only 'after checking with the human'. That narrows usage meaningfully. However, it never names the alternative tools (memory_fact_set, memory_supersede) or states when NOT to use this, so the routing guidance remains inferential.

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