engram_dispute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Mark' but never discloses whether this mutates stored state, whether the marking is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what a later resolution requires. For a state-changing memory operation this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose and its qualifying condition arrive immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the disclosure gaps elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves too much open for a tool that alters memory relationships. Missing are what a dispute does to the two memories, the effect on retrieval/search, and how the conflict is later resolved.

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 and largely does not. 'Two memories' loosely maps to id_a and id_b, but the required memory identifier format is never stated and the optional 'reason' parameter is entirely unexplained.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('two memories') with an outcome ('as conflicting'). It does not name or distinguish itself from closely related siblings like engram_correct or engram_supersede, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 clause 'when it is not yet clear which is right' gives an implied condition for use, distinguishing it loosely from resolution tools. However, it never names an alternative (engram_correct, engram_supersede) or states when NOT to dispute, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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