Accept or dismiss a contradiction suggestion

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 that 'accept' never deletes the candidate, only down-weights it, and that 'dismiss' stops resurfacing without altering ranking. It also cross-references an equivalent command for familiarity, which adds useful context.

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?

Two sentences carry substantial meaning with no filler. The accept behavior is explained first, dismiss second, and the key caveat ('never deletes it') is included immediately for the more consequential action.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational semantics and side effects. It does not describe return values or error cases, but that gap is minor because the primary behavior and parameter roles are clearly articulated.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some relational meaning by explaining that 'accept' links candidateId to againstId, but this largely mirrors what the schema already states for each parameter.

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 states a clear verb ('resolve') and resource (contradiction/stale suggestion), then specifies the two concrete actions 'accept' and 'dismiss' with their distinct effects. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_stale_suggestions, which would only surface the suggestions rather than act on them.

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 gives clear context for when each action is appropriate: 'accept' writes a supersede link and affects ranking, while 'dismiss' silences the suggestion without changing ranking. It implies the tool is used after suggestions are surfaced, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use this tool.

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