record_source_conflict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates the core intent of persisting a conflict rather than auto-selecting, but it says nothing about side effects, persistence semantics, idempotency, return behavior, or whether the operation overwrites existing conflict records.

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 with no filler, and the important distinction 'instead of silently choosing one' is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves important behavioral and parameter details unstated.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the expected format of conflicting_sources, the meaning of uncertainty, or what a successful call returns, making reliable invocation difficult.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'claim_id' and 'conflicting_sources' are required but not described, and 'conflicting_sources' lacks a type in the schema, so an agent has no guidance on how to format the input.

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 clear action and object: record conflicting sources. The contrast 'instead of silently choosing one' helps differentiate it from resolution-oriented tools like validate_claim or resolve_misconception, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'instead of silently choosing one' implies the tool should be used when multiple sources disagree and the system should not pick a winner. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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