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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the recipient sees the updated resolution status, disclosing an external visibility/notification side effect, and clarifies the default (true) versus reopen behavior.

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 sentences, no filler, with the primary action and its toggle stated up front. Every clause carries information (operation, inverse, recipient-visible effect).

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation and its recipient-visible consequence. It is slightly thin on reversibility/permissions context for a destructive-flagged tool, but otherwise complete for this two-parameter operation.

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%, and the schema already states that resolved:true (default) resolves and false reopens, plus that feedbackId comes from get_feedback. The description essentially restates the schema's boolean semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource pair (mark recipient feedback as resolved) and adds the inverse operation (reopen with resolved: false), so the agent can distinguish it from the read-only sibling get_feedback. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the mutating purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining the two modes (resolve vs. reopen via resolved: false), which is useful branching guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives such as get_feedback for reading status.

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