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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden and does disclose two key behaviors: conditional execution ('only when confident, else leaves it for a human') and side effect ('Records a resolved-outcome on success'). It also makes clear this is a mutating action. It omits authentication, reversibility, and the operational meaning of 'confident', so it is not fully transparent.

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 with no filler; the main purpose is in the first clause. The confidence condition and outcome recording are each given their own sentence and earn their 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, so the description must carry more weight. It covers purpose and high-level side effects but not the meaning of the required 'message' parameter, the response/return behavior, or the criteria for confidence. That is insufficient for a mutation tool with two required inputs.

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 explain both parameters. It gives sessionId context ('by sessionId'), but says nothing about what 'message' should contain or how it is used. This leaves the primary required input semantically underdocumented.

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 action ('Auto-resolve'), a precise resource ('support conversation'), and an explicit identifier ('by sessionId'). The 'Resolves only when confident' clause further differentiates behavioral scope, and none of the sibling tools overlap with this support-resolution operation.

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 conditional behavior makes clear this tool is the automated attempt at resolution and that human follow-up remains if confidence is low. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use when X', but the context is sufficiently clear among unrelated siblings. Missing explicit exclusions is the only gap.

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