keep_both_knowledge_snippets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It includes '[mutation]' and says 'activando los dos', indicating a state change, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or what happens to the conflict record.

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 brief, consisting of two short sentences. It is efficient but the first part repeats the second. Front-loads the purpose clearly.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks contextual details such as post-action state or conflict resolution behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% with a single parameter described as 'ID del snippet en conflicto'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, 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: keeping both conflicting knowledge snippets by activating them. The verb and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like reject_knowledge_snippet or resolve_knowledge_conflict.

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 implies the tool is for conflict resolution but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The usage context is inferred from the phrase 'en conflicto'.

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