flag_conflict

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

The description discloses that conflicts are surfaced to the developer in the dashboard and that the tool should not auto-resolve. Without annotations, it carries the full burden and adequately explains the tool's side effects (flagging, not resolving). Missing details like latency or idempotency, but these are minor for this simple action.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the action, specifying triggers, and setting boundaries. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 purpose, usage, and behavioral constraints. It does not mention return values or confirmation messages, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable. Missing minor but useful detail.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The tool description itself does not explain parameter format or examples, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'flag', the resource 'conflict', and provides specific triggers: 'contradictory patterns, duplicated logic across features, or disagreement with a past decision'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_conflicts' and 'log_decision' by framing flagging as a separate action.

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 specifies when to use the tool (noticing contradictory patterns etc.) and explicitly discourages auto-resolving conflicts, providing clear boundaries. It could explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., 'log_decision' for recording decisions), but the context from sibling tool names is accessible.

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