athena_equivalence_resolve_conflict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the conflicting history remains in the event ledger, implying the resolution doesn't erase prior events. It also notes the authorized side must be 'already-witnessed'. However, it doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, or whether the other side is marked rejected.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core function and a side effect without waste.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a nested authority object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the meaning of the relation enum (EQUIVALENT/DISTINCT), the required fields in the authority object, what context_id represents, or what happens to the non-authorized side. The one side effect mentioned is valuable but incomplete.

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 doesn't mention parameter names beyond implicit references to 'pair' (likely left_id/right_id) and 'authorizing' (likely authority). It doesn't explain context_id, relation enum, the authority object structure, or actor, requiring the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' with resource 'pair CONFLICT' and clarifies the mechanism 'explicitly authorizing one already-witnessed side', distinguishing it from sibling equivalence tools like athena_equivalence_state/observe/snapshot which focus on observation/state rather than conflict 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 usage when a pair conflict exists between left_id and right_id, but does not provide any when-not guidance or mention alternatives such as athena_resolve or other conflict resolution tools. No explicit exclusions or differentiators are given.

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