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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the original grounds AND the resolution both remain inspectable, which tells the agent the action is additive rather than destructive. It says nothing about auth expectations, idempotency, or whether a resolved objection can be reopened, which are real gaps for a mutation 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the parameter requirements. No filler. Slightly terse on structure but every sentence earns its 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?

For a 4-required-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, a key behavioral consequence, and parameter identification. It omits error behavior, whether resolution is freeform text, and post-resolution state, so it is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 only 25% (just 'resolution'). The description compensates by decoding the two cryptic parameters: 'id' is the memory id and 'oid' is the objection id, which the schema leaves entirely undocumented. It adds no semantics for 'resolution' beyond the schema and ignores 'api_key'.

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 resource: 'Resolve an open objection on one of your memories.' The 'open objection' qualifier narrows scope meaningfully. It does not name or contrast with a sibling (e.g., memory_object, which presumably raises objections), so it falls 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 phrase 'open objection' implies the precondition that an objection must already exist, which is useful implied usage guidance. However, it never states when to use this versus siblings like memory_object or memory_update, nor what happens if the objection is already resolved.

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