ecg_resolve_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that history is kept, the losing fact is marked superseded and linked, and nothing is ever deleted, plus the exact effect of each resolution value. Auth/permission requirements and rate limits are not mentioned, which is the only gap.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then explains the resolution choices and the history-preservation behavior in a tight, well-ordered block. It is appropriately sized, with only light redundancy in the 'old'/'existing' synonym listing.

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 destructive-looking mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs (choice semantics, supersede-not-delete). It stops short of stating permission or session requirements, but is otherwise complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it fully enumerates the resolution values (new/old/existing/both) with their semantics and explains that conflicts is a list of ids from ecg_list_conflicts. Only session_id is left undocumented, which is a minor omission.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve open conflicts') and names ecg_list_conflicts as the source of the ids, which helps separate it from the sibling that only lists them. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all the other mutation siblings.

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?

Provides clear context for using it: it is 'the user's choice, not a silent overwrite', and the conflicts input comes from ecg_list_conflicts, implying the list-then-resolve workflow. No explicit when-not condition or prerequisite is stated, but the usage context is well established.

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