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

The description discloses that this is a state-mutating operation, and it explicitly documents the reverse behavior with 'Pass `resolved: false` to reopen it.' This goes beyond the bare schema and makes the reversible nature of the action clear, though it does not describe error behavior or authorization requirements.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary action, then gives the when-to-use condition, the reverse operation, and the parameter selection guidance in a compact and well-ordered way.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation details: what to do, when to do it, how to reopen, and which identifiers to provide. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around edge cases such as already-resolved handoffs, invalid or duplicate identifiers, and response behavior.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully by explaining that `resolved: false` reopens a handoff and that `handoffId` and `key` are alternatives ('Provide either...'). It does not specify what happens if both are passed or define `handoffId` further, but the key disambiguation is present.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Mark a handoff resolved') and states the exact state transition being performed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like send_handoff, get_handoff, and derive_from_handoff because it targets resolution state rather than sending, reading, or deriving.

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?

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: call this once the handoff content has been acted on or relayed and the user considers it closed. It does not list exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when to use it.

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