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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is largely carried by structured data. The description's only real addition is semantic: 'resolved' implies the record is retained rather than removed, which usefully separates it from a delete — but it says nothing about whether resolved symptoms disappear from vora_list_symptoms or whether the change is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the qualifier in parentheses; nothing is wasted or buried. It is arguably terse to the point that terseness becomes the problem, but structurally it is clean.

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 one-parameter mutation the definition is workable, especially since annotations cover destructive/idempotent behavior. It still omits what happens to the symptom record afterward (hidden from lists vs. retained as history), what is returned, and how an already-resolved or unknown id is handled.

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 one required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of meaning and offers just '(by id)'. That confirms the value identifies a symptom, but not where the agent obtains the id or what an invalid/unknown uuid produces.

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The description states a specific verb and resource: mark a tracked symptom as resolved/no longer active. The phrasing 'resolved / no longer active' implicitly distinguishes it from vora_delete_symptom, but it never names that sibling or any other, leaving the differentiation to inference from the name alone.

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: you call it when a symptom has resolved. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., to correct a mistaken entry use vora_delete_symptom, or after the fact to record outcome), and no prerequisite context such as needing the id from vora_list_symptoms.

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