resolve_knowledge_conflict

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It includes '[mutation]' indicating a write operation, but it does not clarify what happens to the rejected snippet (e.g., deleted, archived) or any side effects. The description lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or state changes.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 required inputs, no output schema), the description provides the core purpose but lacks details on the outcome (what happens to the rejected snippet) and how it integrates with the conflict resolution flow. It is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully (ID of conflicting snippet and ID of snippet to keep). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for 100% coverage.

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 resolves a conflict between knowledge snippets by choosing which one to keep. The verb 'resolves' and resource 'snippet conflict' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like 'keep_both_knowledge_snippets' or 'reject_knowledge_snippet'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how to choose between conflicting snippets. The context is implied by the name but not stated.

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