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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuine context beyond them: nothing is sent to the customer, and the exact endpoint (POST /api/conversation/{uuid}/resolve.json) is disclosed. It stops short of describing error cases or what happens to an already-resolved conversation.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the WRITE label and the core effect before the optional detail and endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 mutation tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers side effects and the endpoint adequately. It omits any mention of failure modes or idempotent-repeat behavior (though the annotation hints at it), leaving a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by clarifying that disposition_uuid is optional and must be sourced from textline_list_dispositions. It does not explain format details beyond what the schema already encodes.

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 ('mark a conversation resolved (closed)') and explicitly labels it as a WRITE operation. This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings like textline_get_conversation and from the other mutation sibling textline_transfer_conversation.

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?

Names the companion tool for obtaining the optional disposition value (textline_list_dispositions), giving the agent a concrete path before invoking. It does not state when NOT to resolve (e.g., versus transferring), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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