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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add an important behavioral constraint: ownership ('your own question'). It also clarifies the effect (resolving or reopening). However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, permissions, or what happens on invalid transitions, leaving notable gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation support.

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, compact sentence with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and every word 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 simple 2-parameter state-change tool, the description covers purpose, ownership scoping, and status semantics adequately. However, it omits return behavior and any error/edge cases, and the absence of annotations raises the need for more detail than is provided. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Resolve' explains the semantic meaning of the 'resolved' status and 'reopen' explains 'open', directly mapping to the enum. It also implies that 'id' refers to a question the user owns, adding meaning beyond the bare integer schema.

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 'Resolve or reopen your own question' states a specific verb (resolve/reopen), a specific resource (your own question), and precisely maps to the status enum values (resolved/open). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like ask_question, read_question, and answer_question.

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 phrase 'your own question' clearly establishes when this tool is appropriate—only for questions the user owns—thereby implicitly excluding use on others' questions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios relative to siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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