mark_contradiction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating a CONTRADICTS relationship but does not disclose side effects (e.g., reversibility, whether it modifies memories, permission requirements). For a mutation tool, more detail is needed.

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 two short sentences front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words, and all information is relevant. It is appropriately sized and structured.

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 simplicity (two required integer parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the basic purpose and usage context. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the relationship direction or other nuances, but it is sufficient for typical use.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description does not add any semantic meaning beyond the schema's 'First memory ID' and 'Second memory ID'. No additional context about order or symmetry is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Mark' and the resource 'two memories as contradicting each other', explicitly creating a CONTRADICTS relationship. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'link_memories' (which creates a LINK) and 'resolve_contradiction' (which resolves contradictions).

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 specifies when to use the tool: 'when you discover that two memories contain conflicting information about the same topic.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. Given the sibling list, these are implied, so it is still helpful.

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