conflict

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, matching the description of conflicts being managed and resolved. The description adds context about auto_resolve's dry_run flag for previewing persistence, which is not in annotations. No contradiction.

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 structured with actions listed and parameters grouped. It is somewhat lengthy but each section adds value. The main purpose is front-loaded. A more streamlined format could improve conciseness.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0 required, and no schema descriptions, the description provides adequate context for each action and parameter. The output schema exists but is not shown, so return values are not described. Overall, it covers the essential information for tool usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It groups parameters by action and explains their roles (e.g., strategy for resolve, dry_run for auto_resolve). This adds meaning beyond the schema's default values and types, though individual parameter details are brief.

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 manages memory conflicts and lists specific actions (list, get, resolve, reclassify, auto_resolve). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique function. The purpose is clear but could be more concise.

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 explicit guidance for each action, e.g., listing with optional status filter and resolving with strategies. It mentions the auto_resolve action for v0.8.0+ and dry_run for previewing. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, it gives sufficient context.

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