brain_resolve_conflict

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It transparently describes the consequences of each winner choice: for 'success' it 'reaffirms the fix' and the failure stops blocking recall; for 'failure' it retires the fix, decays CKG edges to ~0, and archives the lesson. Also notes human-in-the-loop as the strongest signal. No contradictions, but could mention reversibility or permission needs.

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?

Three efficient sentences: first defines the overall action, second details the outcomes, third gives a crucial usage hint. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description covers the action and consequences, but does not mention the output/return value. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left wondering whether the tool returns a confirmation, status, or error. Also missing error conditions and prerequisites beyond listing conflicts. Adequate but with a notable gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of the 'winner' values in context (what 'success' and 'failure' actually do). Other parameters are well described in the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Arbitrate a contested topic by picking the winning side.' It explains the two winner options in detail and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool brain_conflicts (which lists open conflicts). The verb and resource are explicit.

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?

Provides guidance: 'List open conflicts first with brain_conflicts.' This implies the prerequisite step and directs the user to the appropriate sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or discuss alternatives in more detail.

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