resolve

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect (mark one winner, one stale), but does not mention irreversibility, permissions, audit logging, or other side effects. The reason parameter's audit log behavior is only in the schema, not the description. This is a significant gap 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and lacks unnecessary filler. The second sentence about marking winner/stale clarifies the mechanism without being verbose. It earns a high score for conciseness and structure.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and 100% param coverage, the description plus schema provide a fairly complete picture: what it does, when to use it, and what happens to winner/loser. The lack of output schema doesn't matter. Minor ambiguity about 'capture reports a conflict' but it's understandable in context.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to. Baseline score 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 tool's purpose: 'Resolve a conflict between two captures.' It identifies the specific action (resolve), the resource (captures), and distinguishes itself from siblings like update or consolidate by focusing on conflict resolution between two captures.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool: 'Call this tool when capture reports a conflict between two memories.' This provides clear context, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion cases. Thus it meets the criteria for 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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