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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is an irreversible state change. The description's 'call this last, after the record is in its final state' adds useful sequencing context, but says nothing about what is destroyed, whether re-resolution is possible, or what the result looks like.

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, no filler, with the action stated first and the ordering constraint second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with two required yet completely undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what to put in 'summary' or confirm what 'resolved' entails beyond the annotation flags.

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% and both parameters are required, so the description carries the burden of explaining them — yet it never mentions exception_id or summary. In particular, what 'summary' should contain (a resolution note? a computed total?) is left entirely undefined.

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: 'Mark the exception resolved.' The action is distinguishable from sibling escalate_exception, though the description never names siblings or contrasts the two terminal-state operations.

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?

'Call this last, after the record is in its final state' gives a clear ordering precondition for when to invoke it. It stops short of naming alternatives (escalate_exception, dispute_invoice) or stating when not to call it.

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