resolve_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive outcome of replaces_old=True ('the old one is retired') and the non-destructive alternative, but says nothing about reversibility, permissions, error behavior, or whether other memories referencing the retired one are affected.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the two flag branches, then the escalation rule. No filler sentences, though the value-branch phrasing is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the acceptance/rejection semantics of the boolean are covered. The main omission is any prerequisite about how a conflict is identified before calling this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the pivotal boolean replaces_old with both branches, which is the hardest parameter; however, new_id and old_id are left entirely undocumented and their roles are only inferable from their names.

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 ('settle') and resource ('a possible conflict'), and the flag semantics make the outcome unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_conflicts or replace_memory, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Ask the user if you're not sure' gives a useful uncertainty rule, and the tool is implied to be used when a conflict is detected. However, it never names which sibling to use instead (e.g. list_conflicts to find conflicts, replace_memory for a straight replacement), 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.