Resolve project feedback

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds the owner-only authorization requirement and the dual resolve/reopen capability, providing useful context beyond the structured annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the core action. It is efficient, though it could slightly expand on parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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?

With no output schema and minimal behavioral disclosure beyond annotations, the description leaves gaps: no side effects, no parameter explanations, and no guidance on when to use this over sibling feedback tools. It is not complete enough for an agent to confidently decide when to invoke it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the `resolved` parameter's meaning or default behavior, nor the purpose of the UUID identifiers beyond their names. The agent must infer that resolved=true resolves and false reopens.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('resolves or reopens') on a specific resource ('one saved feedback item'), and adds an owner-only restriction. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_project_feedback and list_project_feedback.

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 description implies usage in a review context ('Owner-only review decision') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or direct comparisons to other feedback tools.

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