memo_conflict_open

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, noting that the tool writes to a hash-chained journal and that resolution is human-only. Annotations already indicate non-destructive write operations, so the description aligns and adds value without contradiction.

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 very concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose and then adding key details about the journal and resolution. Every sentence is informative with no fluff.

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 role in conflict management, the description adequately covers the core workflow and mentions the journal's auditability. It does not detail the output schema, but that is acceptable since an output schema exists. Minor gaps in expectations about 'open a conflict' are acceptable.

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 the schema already explains all parameters well. The description does not add new information about parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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's purpose: 'Open a local, auditable reality conflict.' It specifies that it writes a 'detected' conflict record to a hash-chained journal, distinguishing it from siblings like memo_conflict_resolve which handles human 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 when to use this tool (to open a conflict) and mentions memo_conflict_resolve for resolution, providing an alternative. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or specific prerequisites.

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