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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by confirming the record persists ('No se borra'), but it does not explain the non-idempotent behavior declared in annotations — e.g. whether re-resolving the same gotcha errors or overwrites the previous 'how' value.

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, action first and the non-deletion caveat second; every clause carries information and there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. However, with no output schema, the description says nothing about what is returned on success or how failures (unknown gotcha ID, re-resolution) are surfaced, which leaves a real gap for an agent handling the result.

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 all three parameters are already documented, including that 'project' uses p1/p2-style IDs from list_projects. The description echoes 'con qué la arregló', which reinforces the meaning of 'how' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Marca una gotcha como resuelta') and adds the key effect ('No se borra'), which separates it from a delete-style operation and from the add_gotcha sibling that creates entries. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be called once a gotcha has actually been fixed, since the 'how' value is required. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what happens if the gotcha is already resolved, and no note that the project/gotcha IDs come from list_projects.

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