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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real context not in any structured field: resolving clears the notification cooldown so the next occurrence is immediately reported as a regression, and the call requires write scope plus errors.write. It omits what 'ignore' does to future notifications and whether a status change is reversible.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action set, followed by the non-obvious side effect and then the permission requirement. Nothing is redundant, though the permission sentence could be compressed into a clause.

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 five-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the permission gate and one important side effect, which is decent. However it leaves the status enum ambiguity (four values, three actions) and the environment defaulting behavior unaddressed, so an agent could still mis-set status.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage, the description would need to carry weight, yet it only clarifies that assigneeId is optional and gives semantic meaning to resolving. It never maps the enum values open/regressed to the 'reopen' action, and app, issueId and environment are left entirely to a sparse 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?

States a specific verb set (resolve, ignore, reopen) against a specific resource (an error issue) plus an optional assignment, which separates it from read-only siblings like get_error and list_errors. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 three action verbs imply when the tool applies, and the mention of write scope signals a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not framing, no pointer to get_error/list_errors for reading, and no guidance on the destructive/irreversible aspect of resolving.

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