resolve_contradiction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'confidence-weighted strategy' but does not explain what 'auto' does, whether the operation mutates the fact base, or if it requires special permissions. Missing important context about the resolution process.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and includes a list of strategies. Could be more structured but is efficient and to the point.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, side effects, prerequisites, or how strategies differ internally. A more comprehensive description is needed for a resolution tool.

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 0%. The description lists the strategy options but does not explain them. fact_a_id and fact_b_id are obvious from context, but notes is not described. Minimal value added beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'pick a winner' and resource 'two contradicting facts' with specific strategies listed. It distinguishes from sibling tool find_contradictions which finds contradictions.

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 implicitly conveys that the tool is used when a contradiction is identified between two facts, but it provides no guidance on when to use which strategy or when to avoid this tool. No explicit when-not or alternatives are mentioned.

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