reject_and_propose_knowledge_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly marks the tool as [mutation] and explicitly states it requires confirmation (confirm=true). It discloses that both conflicting snippets are rejected and a new one is created, but could be more precise about what 'reject' entails (e.g., deletion or archival).

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, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every part adds value without redundancy. The use of [mutation] tag is concise.

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 tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers the main logic: rejection of both snippets, creation of new one, and confirmation requirement. Missing details like return value or what happens to database state, but sufficient for basic use.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'proposed_content' (content proposed by user), the 'confirm' parameter requirement, and the optional 'conflict_with_id' parameter's default behavior (taken from snippet's field).

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: 'Rechazar conflicto y proponer dato correcto' and explains it rejects both conflicting snippets and creates a new one with proposed content. It distinguishes from siblings like 'reject_knowledge_snippet' (likely single reject) and 'keep_both_knowledge_snippets' by its combination of actions.

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 usage when there is a knowledge conflict and the user wants to propose correct content. It mentions requiring confirmation (confirm=true) but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool vs other conflict resolution tools like 'resolve_knowledge_conflict' or 'edit_knowledge_snippet'.

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