resolve_contradiction

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the three resolution methods and their effects (creating relationships, weakening trust, deleting). This provides sufficient transparency for an agent.

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 concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a structured list of resolution behaviors. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of an output schema and the detailed explanation of resolution behaviors, the description provides complete context for this tool. All parameters are well-described in the schema, and the description adds the missing behavioral effects.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the resolution options in more detail and clarifying that keep_id must be one of the two memory IDs.

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 action ('Resolve a contradiction') and the resource ('memory'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_contradictions and mark_contradiction by focusing on resolution.

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 use after contradictions are identified, but does not explicitly provide when-not or alternative scenarios. However, the context of sibling tools makes the usage context clear.

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