cortex_resolve_contradiction

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the resolution is permanent, side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the discarded version. With no annotations, this lack of transparency is significant for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no extraneous information.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., needing a contradiction ID from 'cortex_check_contradictions'), expected output, or post-resolution behavior. The agent is left without sufficient guidance.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. However, it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters like 'keep_version' options or 'corrected_value'. Baseline of 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 action ('Resolve') and the resource ('contradiction'), along with the method ('choosing which version to keep'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cortex_check_contradictions' and 'cortex_resolve_issue'.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cortex_check_contradictions' for detection or 'cortex_ask_human' for ambiguity. An agent lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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