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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds that a resolution note accompanies the state change, but says nothing about reversibility, idempotency, required permissions, or whether re-resolving an already-resolved anomaly is allowed – reasonable context 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?

A single ten-word sentence with no filler; the mutation and its accompanying input are front-loaded. It is efficient, though it is so short that it leaves no room for the usage/behavioral context a mutation tool benefits from.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers what the agent needs to invoke it. Minor gaps (irreversibility, permission requirements, post-resolution effects) are not fatal at this complexity level.

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% and both parameters (anomalyId, resolution) are documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'resolution note' adds slight framing but no format, length, or required-ness detail beyond what the schema already provides. 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+resource: 'Mark an anomaly as resolved with a resolution note.' An agent can tell this mutates a specific anomaly's state. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_unresolved_anomalies, report_anomaly, or get_anomaly_stats, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The natural pairing with get_unresolved_anomalies (fetch unresolved, then resolve) and the boundary with report_anomaly are left entirely for the agent to infer.

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