resolve_contradiction

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the losing fact, whether the operation is destructive or reversible). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. It front-loads the action ('Pick a winner') and lists strategies efficiently. However, the list of strategies could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for 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?

Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral details. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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%, yet the description only mentions the 'strategy' parameter by listing options. It does not explain 'fact_a_id', 'fact_b_id', or 'notes' (e.g., format, purpose). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the 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 tool resolves contradictions between two facts using a confidence-weighted strategy. It lists available strategies, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_contradictions' or 'record_decision', which might be related.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., facts must exist) or when not to use it. The list of strategies implies some usage context but lacks explicit direction.

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