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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: the authorization model (board moderator or unrestricted admin) and that this is a mutating close action. It omits whether closure is reversible, whether a resolution reason is recorded, and what effect (if any) applies to the reported post.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Resolve (close)') followed by the qualifier. No filler text; the parenthetical gloss and permission clause each carry information.

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 with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the authorization boundary, which is the most important missing piece. It still leaves the post-closure effects and error conditions unstated, so it is adequate but not 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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies only the type and uuid format. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., that reportId must be an open report or where to obtain it), but the name is largely self-explanatory, leaving this at a minimum-viable level.

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?

States a specific verb and object: 'Resolve (close) an open post report', which is unambiguous about the state transition. It partially differentiates from the sibling admin_resolve_report by scoping authority ('any moderator of the board the reported post belongs to; admins unrestricted'), though it never names that sibling directly.

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 the tool is applicable by spelling out the permission envelope, so an agent can infer that a board moderator uses this rather than the admin variant. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over admin_resolve_report or how it relates to admin_report_action, and no exclusions are given.

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