resolve_contradiction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the tool 'applies' a resolution. It does not disclose whether the conflict is removed, updated, marked as resolved, requires permissions, or is reversible.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the main purpose. The second sentence mostly repeats values already visible in the schema enum, so it adds limited new information, but overall the structure remains tight and scannable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'a' and 'b' refer to, what happens after resolution, or what the return value indicates, leaving an agent to guess at the behavior and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates the enum values without defining what a_supersedes_b, b_supersedes_a, both_provisional, or dismissed mean. It adds minimal context for contradiction_id by calling it a 'queued FACT conflict from the contradictions table' but leaves notes and the meaning of the resolution options unexplained.

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 ('resolve') and a specific resource ('queued FACT conflict from the contradictions table'). The description makes the tool's domain and scope clear, distinguishing it from fact-recording and other workflow tools.

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 intended context is implied by 'queued FACT conflict' and the enumerated resolution types, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus any alternative. No competing resolution tool is mentioned, and no exclusion conditions are provided.

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