Resolve project feedback

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying 'Owner-only' and the two possible actions (resolve/reopen). However, for a destructive tool, it does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., whether the action is reversible) or what 'destructive' means in this context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 of 10 words, front-loaded with the key constraint ('Owner-only'). It is concise with no wasted words. However, brevity sacrifices parameter details, which is a trade-off, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the role of the resolved parameter, what happens after resolution (e.g., state change, visibility), or prerequisite conditions beyond 'Owner-only'. The tool is more complex than the description acknowledges.

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 but fails to explain any of the three parameters. The description only implies feedback_id via 'one saved feedback item', but does not mention project_id or the resolved boolean (which determines resolve vs. reopen). Without parameter info, the agent cannot correctly map inputs to the expected behavior.

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 the tool's action: 'Owner-only review decision that resolves or reopens one saved feedback item.' It uses a specific verb ('resolves/reopens') and resource ('feedback item'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_project_feedback (creates) and list_project_feedback (lists).

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 mentions 'Owner-only', which implies a usage constraint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_project_feedback for creating, list_project_feedback for viewing). No alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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