resolve_conflicts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the two behavioral branches: 'lopsided-evidence conflicts retire the stale trace' and 'balanced ones lose confidence', including the mechanism (accommodation + REM-style resolution). It could mention reversibility or side effects, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently explains the resolution rules. No wasteful words; every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and what outcomes occur. It does not state expected return values, but for a mutation tool the effect is fully described. Overall adequate and complete for the tool's scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the task rather than parameter details, which is appropriate here.

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 action: 'Resolve memory conflicts on demand.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying two resolution outcomes (retiring stale trace or losing confidence), which separates it from list_conflicts and conflict_advice.

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?

'On demand' gives usage context. The two conflict types imply when to use it (when lopsided or balanced evidence conflicts exist). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intent is clear enough to guide an agent. No exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficient.

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