resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the state changes: one capture becomes the winner (stays active) and the other becomes stale. It does not mention return values or reversibility, but for a simple state-changing tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains zero wasted 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 tool's low complexity and complete schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, and the effect. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap because the description doesn't mention return values, but for this simple action it is likely not needed.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (winner, loser, reason), so the description doesn't need to repeat them. The main description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 action: resolving a conflict between two captures by marking a winner and a loser as stale. It uses specific verbs and domain terms, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like capture, search, and forget by focusing specifically on conflict 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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Call this tool when capture reports a conflict between two memories.' This provides a clear trigger condition, though it does not mention when not to use it or mention alternatives. The guidance is sufficient for a focused tool.

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