resolve_note

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it: it does not say whether the change is reversible, whether an already-resolved note errors or is a no-op, whether other reviewers' notes are affected, or what the response contains. The word "Mark" hints at a mutation but no state, permission, or idempotency details are disclosed.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, but the brevity is under-specification rather than tight writing given the missing behavioral and parameter context.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition supplies almost nothing beyond the name. An agent cannot predict failure modes, side effects, or return shape from this text 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 description coverage is 0% for both required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not — neither `project` (does it scope the lookup, or is it the target?) nor `note_id` (format, where obtained) is mentioned. The only implicit cue is that "note" in the description loosely corresponds to note_id.

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 concrete verb phrase ("mark as handled") against a specific resource ("review note"), which is distinguishable from siblings like add_note and list_notes without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings or naming the unresolved->resolved state transition.

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 call this versus add_note or list_notes, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. note must exist and be open), and no mention of the related undo tool. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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