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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the action cascades to unblock dependent items, making it a multi-step process-initiator. It also discloses the sensitive-tier approval flow, including approval persistence semantics. This goes meaningfully beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and statuses come first, then the cascading consequence, then the optional parameter, then the approval guidance. Every sentence carries operational weight, including the useful 'first clear ask' directive. No filler or repetition.

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, process-initiating tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral consequences (cascade/unblock), the approval sensitivity, and the status semantics. Required parameters are fully described in the schema. It could optionally note what response to expect, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description restates the status enum and default and mentions the optional outcome field, but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 ('Mark'), a specific resource ('shared work-graph item'), and the exact statuses allowed (verified, published, cancelled). It also notes the cascading/unblocking behavior, which clearly distinguishes this from nearby lifecycle tools like complete_commitment or publish_pipeline_item without needing to name them.

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 clear context: resolving is a process-initiator that unblocks dependents, and it provides explicit operational guidance ('Call it on the first clear ask; the card is the yes — do not re-ask in chat'). It does not list exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is specific enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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