Resolve Memory Conflict

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write operation. The description adds the 'only when user/admin explicitly chooses' constraint, which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't detail what 'resolve' means in terms of memory data changes or that it may overwrite/merge memory entries beyond what the schema hints at.

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 short sentences; the first states the purpose, the second adds a critical usage condition. No redundant or extraneous content, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 extensive schema (100% parameter coverage) and annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description is sufficient for invocation. It could benefit from noting the destructive impact on memory, but the annotations already cover that, and the output schema likely explains return values, so the description itself is adequately complete.

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 descriptions for all five parameters, including the meaning of resolution_strategy, winning_memory_id, and merge_content. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' with the resource 'memory conflict', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_memory_conflicts. It also qualifies that the conflict must be 'listed', indicating a prerequisite derived from the listing tool.

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 explicitly states 'Call this only when the user/admin explicitly chooses a resolution strategy', providing a clear condition for invocation and excluding automatic use. It doesn't name alternatives, but the condition itself guides selection and implies the agent should wait for explicit user/admin direction.

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