memo_conflict_open

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

Annotations are all false, and the description adds minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'local, auditable' but does not explain what this entails, such as side effects or requirements.

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 sentence, but it is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here, it fails to convey essential 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?

With 0% schema coverage, missing parameter details, and no output schema explanation, the description is incomplete. The tool's purpose and behavior are not adequately conveyed.

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 provides no information about parameters (topic, summary, freeze_write, evidence_uris). The agent cannot infer correct usage without additional examples.

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 states 'Open a local, auditable reality conflict.' It provides a verb and resource but is vague. The term 'reality conflict' is not defined, and it does not distinguish from sibling tools like memo_conflict_resolve.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list is long, but the description offers no context for selection.

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