settle

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds nothing about side effects: whether settling is reversible, what happens to the question afterward, whether an actor identity/authorization is required, or whether it is idempotent. For a mutation-shaped tool that "closes" something, that silence is a real gap; the "by someone's word or by evidence" clause is conceptual framing, not behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short and the core instruction sits early, but two of the four sentences are spent on metaphor and on deferring to the `query` sibling, while the actionable noun list ("confirmed (upto, basis)") is compressed into a fragment that takes rereading to parse.

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 a nested `params` object, an untyped `action` string with no enum, no output schema, and zero required parameters, the description needed to carry substantial weight. Instead it documents exactly one action and tells the agent to go ask another tool for the rest, leaving the agent unable to invoke `settle` correctly from this definition alone.

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 coverage is only 33% (only `actor` is documented), but the description does compensate partially by naming the action value "confirmed" and its params "upto, basis" — information absent from the schema. However, it leaves the meaning of `upto` and `basis` unexplained and does not indicate whether other actions exist or how `params` is keyed.

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 gestures at a verb+resource ("Close a question") and names a single action, "confirmed", but the framing is metaphorical ("by someone's word or by evidence: a decision made, a hypothesis borne out") rather than operational. It never says concretely what object is being closed or what state change results, and offers no differentiation from siblings like ask, revise, or report.

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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to the nine sibling tools, several of which (ask, revise, report) plausibly overlap with closing a question. "Call with the action and its params" is an invocation mechanic, not a usage rule, and "query actions says what each does" offloads the routing decision to another tool.

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