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

Annotations supply destructiveHint=true, so the mutating nature is already declared; the description reinforces this by emphasizing that live incident state CHANGES and incidents are marked done. It adds little beyond the annotation, though — no note on reversibility, required permissions, or partial-failure behavior when multiple ids are passed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the mutation warning front-loaded and the API endpoint appended. The capitalization emphasis is a bit shouty and the endpoint detail is marginal, but nothing is padded.

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 destructive, multi-id mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens (state change, marked done) but omits what an agent most needs: whether resolution is reversible, what happens on partial failure, and what the response contains.

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%, so both ids and teamId are already well documented at the field level. The description only echoes the ids payload shape ({ids:[...]}) and adds nothing about teamId or batching semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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 — resolves/closes incidents — plus the scope ('one or more'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from spike_acknowledge_incidents by framing the operation as closing/marking done, but it never names the sibling it must be chosen over.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. Given siblings like spike_acknowledge_incidents and spike_set_incident_priority, the agent gets no rule for choosing resolve versus acknowledge versus re-prioritize; the reader must infer that 'closes/marks done' is terminal.

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