memory_arbitrate

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

The description partially discloses behavior: mark_conflict=true records conflicts, apply=true automatically marks unprotected losers as superseded. However, it fails to explain what 'protected' means, whether the operation is reversible, or any prerequisites, leaving significant gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundancy, and front-loaded key actions. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Despite an existing output schema, the description lacks details on arbitration rules (how winner is determined), the concept of 'protected', and side effects. It leaves critical questions unanswered, making it incomplete for a state-modifying 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to two boolean parameters (apply, mark_conflict) but does not explain the required integer parameters (left_id, right_id), which are left to inference. This is insufficient for full comprehension.

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's purpose: arbitrating between two conflicting memories to determine a winner and loser. It specifies the action ('仲裁两条冲突记忆的胜者与败者') and distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_list_conflicts or memory_confirm by focusing on resolution.

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 description implies when to use the tool (to resolve conflicts) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, it does not mention memory_confirm or memory_compare as alternatives for non-conflict scenarios.

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