marrow_arbitrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses the Marrow runtime gate and returns a durable arbitration receipt with four outcome types (selected, synthesized, review-required, blocked) and an explanation for changes. However, it does not address side effects, permission requirements, or whether the receipt is a persisted record beyond 'durable,' leaving ambiguity about impact on execution. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core purpose and then specify the return artifact and possible outcomes. Every phrase adds value with no repetition of schema details, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested proposal objects, no output schema), the description provides a high-level overview of the return receipt and possible outcomes but doesn't explain the meaning of 'synthesized' vs 'selected' or what the caller should do next. It lacks information about error conditions, prerequisite runtime gate state, or how the 'durable' receipt should be consumed, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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 73%, so the schema carries most of the parameter documentation. The description adds little parameter detail beyond naming 'proposals' implicitly and the 'two or more tenant agents' requirement, which is already encoded in minItems=2. For the undocumented parameters (surfaces, conflictType), the description offers no help, so parameter semantics are adequate but not enhanced.

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 'Resolve conflicting next-step proposals from two or more tenant agents before execution,' using a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('conflicting next-step proposals'). It distinguishes itself by the 'before execution' qualifier and the specific input type, making it distinct from sibling tools.

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 there are conflicting proposals among multiple agents and indicates it's a pre-execution step, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools such as marrow_policy_resolve or marrow_workflow_gate. It provides a clear context (conflict resolution) but lacks exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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