memo_conflict_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds that it 'Report's the action, which is consistent and provides context, but does not disclose edge cases or what happens if the conflict doesn't exist.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient, though additional brief details about the parameter or output could be included without harming conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, no details about the output are given. The description lacks explanation of what 'local human action' entails, and the parameter is undocumented. For a simple tool, more context is expected.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description adds no meaning about what 'id' represents (e.g., conflict ID). The parameter is left entirely undefined, providing no assistance to the agent.

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 uses the verb 'Report' and specific resource 'local human action required to resolve a conflict,' clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'memo_conflict_open' by focusing on resolution actions rather than listing conflicts.

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 one needs to know the human action to resolve a conflict, but it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'memo_conflict_open' for listing conflicts.

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