memory_fact_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description plausibly carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds a useful return contract showing success keys and the no-contender failure case, and it signals a human-in-the-loop requirement. It does not explicitly describe the mutation effect itself, but the accept parameter schema and the return keys together provide enough behavioral context.

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 two short, purposeful sentences: the first explains what the tool does, and the second gives the return shapes. There is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter tool with a fully described input schema and an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it names the contested-slot context, the human-check requirement, and the possible outcomes. It could be more complete by explicitly stating side effects and exclusions, but it is not missing anything critical.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, although the schema's 'accept' description is already rich.

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 ('Settle') and resource ('a CONTESTED fact slot') plus the human-check prerequisite. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as memory_fact_set or memory_supersede.

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 capitalized 'CONTESTED' and the phrase 'after checking with the human' give a clear trigger condition: this tool is for resolving contested fact slots only after human input. It provides clear context but stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly saying when not to use it.

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