memory_fact_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explains the two branches (accept=true adopts, old value kept as history; accept=false discards the contender), and discloses the return format including the failure case (resolved:false, reason:'no_contender'). This goes beyond minimal requirements and clarifies side effects.

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 focused sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail the decision branches and return values. Every sentence adds necessary information with no redundancy. Markdown formatting for booleans and return structure improves readability.

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?

The description provides all essential invocation details: the action (settle), the decision parameter (accept), and return values for both success and failure. It does not explicitly describe what a 'contender' is, but that is an internal concept. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operation without missing critical information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of the accept parameter (true/false behavior) but does not elaborate on entity or attribute. These are implicitly understood as the fact identifier, but the description does not explicitly define them, leaving a partial gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Settle a CONTESTED fact slot'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like memory_fact_set (sets a fact) and memory_supersede (replaces) by focusing on contest resolution, not just setting or superseding a value.

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?

Provides clear context: use when there is a contested fact slot and after 'checking with the human'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, such as memory_fact_set or memory_consolidate. No exclusions are stated, but the context is unambiguous.

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