relay_resolve_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is deleted, that the loser is marked superseded, that the conflict pair disappears, and that dependent facts are returned as stale. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements, idempotency, or whether the resolution can be undone.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the exact side effects and return behavior. No filler sentences.

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 4-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome and the returned stale-fact set. It is only slightly short on permission/error behavior and reversibility.

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 only 50% — the two UUID parameters have no descriptions beyond a $ref — but the description supplies the missing semantics by explaining the winner/loser relationship (winner supersedes loser) and that a reason accompanies the choice, which the bare schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('record that the winner fact supersedes the loser') plus the framing operation ('Close a fork'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling relay_detect_conflicts, which only surfaces conflicts; this one resolves them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention that 'the pair stops appearing as a conflict' tells the agent this is the follow-up to conflict detection, but there is no explicit 'use this when a conflict has been detected' statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative to compare against.

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