memo_conflict_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: that it returns a command string for human execution and does not resolve anything itself. No 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?

Two sentences, each adding value. The first states the primary purpose, the second clarifies behavior (read-only, returns command). No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 low complexity (1 param, clear annotations, output schema present), the description is fully sufficient. It explains the tool's purpose, limitation, and output nature. No gaps.

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 100% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Id of the conflict to resolve.' The description does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 'reports the local human action required to resolve a conflict'. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('local human action'), and distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it does not resolve conflicts itself, unlike other conflict-related tools.

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 explicitly says 'Read-only: never resolves anything itself' and that it returns a command for a human to run. This gives clear context on when to use it (to get the resolution command) and implies when not to (when actual resolution is needed, use another tool). However, it doesn't name specific alternatives.

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