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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates/destroys state, but the description adds nothing about what 'resolve' destroys, whether it is reversible, or what permissions are required. For a destructive operation, the description should carry more than the annotations do.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its fault is under-specification rather than verbosity, which is not penalized heavily here.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but a destructive single-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no distinction from notifications_ack leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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 0% for the single required parameter notification_id, so the schema explains nothing. The description only implies that 'one' notification is targeted, adding no format, source, or how-to-obtain detail to compensate.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('one TaskTools notification'), so the basic action is clear. However, it gives no differentiation from the very similar sibling notifications_ack, and 'Resolve' is ambiguous about what actually happens to the notification.

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?

No guidance on when to resolve versus when to use notifications_ack, notifications_scan, or notifications_list. The agent is left to guess which notification lifecycle tool applies.

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