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

Annotations already declare a destructive, non-read-only mutation, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: gaps the agent raised close without a card, while a person-authored question requires their approval (matching the approvalId re-call flow). It stops short of saying whether a resolution can be undone or corrected later.

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 purpose and the two statuses are front-loaded in the first sentence. The middle sentence is a long run-on mixing invariant ('the resolution alone isn't the map') with follow-up page-writing instructions, slightly diluting focus, but overall it is tight and every clause is substantive.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the approval-gating behavior and the expectation that the answer be propagated to the relevant page. What is missing is the response shape (e.g. whether the call can return needs_confirmation) and whether DISMISSED requires a resolution.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on all five parameters (including the status enum and the approvalId flow), the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description restates the ANSWERED/DISMISSED distinction and the 'resolution' pairing but adds no syntax, constraints, or guidance beyond what is documented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Closes a gap') and enumerates the two terminal states (ANSWERED with resolution, DISMISSED), which lets an agent distinguish it from compass_gaps_create and compass_gaps_list. It never states, however, how it differs from the sibling compass_gaps_update, which overlaps conceptually with 'resolve'.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('once you've learned the answer ... or decided it doesn't matter') and even a cadence recommendation ('resolve gaps as their answers land'). It does not explicitly exclude the closely-related compass_gaps_update or explain which to prefer when a gap merely changes status.

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