Resolves memory entry version conflicts by presenting old and new versions for explicit user choice. Confirms owner approval before replacement, even when no valid version remains.
向用户展示新旧版本并获得明确选择后调用；仅所有者可替代当前版本。当前没有有效版本（旧版本已撤回或过期）时，经所有者确认后 expected_id 留空。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_id | Yes | ||
| directory | Yes | ||
| expected_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals that this is a mutating operation (replaces current version) and has an owner-only restriction. But it does not disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, reversibility, or whether it modifies other entries. For a write operation, this is insufficient 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 a single dense sentence that mixes usage rules, restrictions, and parameter guidance. It is concise but not well structured; there is no clear separation of purpose, usage, or parameters. It front-loads the 'show versions and get choice' instruction, which is not 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?
For a mutation tool with three parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks any explanation of directory and entry_id, does not describe the return value, and provides no distinction from similar memory tools. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.
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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains expected_id (leave blank when no valid version) but leaves directory and entry_id entirely unexplained. The description does not help an agent understand what values are valid or how they relate to the operation.
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 focuses on when to call rather than what the tool does. It implies the tool replaces the current version, but never states the core operation as a verb on a resource. The name 'memory_resolve' suggests conflict resolution, but the description doesn't explicitly say 'resolve a memory conflict' or similar. It is distinguishable from siblings only through inference.
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 explicit conditions: call after showing old/new versions and getting explicit choice, and only owner can replace. Also specifies when to leave expected_id blank. However, it does not mention alternatives among the sibling tools, so an agent might not know when to use this versus memory_reject or memory_rebase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.