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

Annotations already disclose the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds the admin-only authorization requirement, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not explain the consequence of the 'link' action — e.g. whether the external post is consumed or merged — which is the key behavioral question for a resolving/mutating tool.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a short related-tools pointer; the primary purpose is front-loaded and every clause carries information (two outcomes, auth gate, id source).

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage, and 100% parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply purpose, auth, and routing. It does that well, though it leaves the post-link side effects unstated.

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%, with the enum values and the targetPostId/externalPostId origins documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb (resolve) with the two distinct outcomes (keep as unmatched external post vs. link to an existing Mark post) and names the resource precisely. An agent can distinguish this from generic post tools like get_post or list_connections without opening the schema.

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 gives a real prerequisite ('Admin only') and points to the sibling that supplies the input ('list_connections') plus get_post as related context. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the context for invoking it is clear.

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