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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower and the description clears it by disclosing the non-obvious auto-reopen lifecycle and that a confirmation is returned. It doesn't cover auth requirements or what identity the resolution is attributed to, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three short sentences, the action stated first, lifecycle caveat second, return value last — no filler. Slightly more compact phrasing could merge the lifecycle and return clauses, but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, side effect on recurrence, and the return shape ('a confirmation'). Nothing essential is missing, though permission/attribution context would have made it airtight.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description adds only the illustrative 'such as the fixing commit' for comment and says nothing extra about errorId. That is a marginal enrichment over the annotated schema, consistent with the baseline 3.

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?

A specific verb plus resource — 'Marks an error group resolved' — with the optional note scoped in. It is distinguishable from siblings like ignore_error/unignore_error by the 'resolved' outcome, though it never names those siblings to sharpen the contrast.

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 sentence 'The group reopens on its own if the error happens again' implicitly guides selection versus ignore_error (permanent suppression), but the description never states that tradeoff explicitly or says when not to use it.

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