resolution_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that a report is a claim rather than a fact and that DISPUTED is a first-class status, which is useful semantic context. It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, side effects, validation requirements, or what happens to existing resolution state when recording or disputing.

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 short and front-loads the core action, which is good. However, cryptic fragments such as 'T1 (core-local)' and 'spec 5.4' consume space without adding actionable meaning for an agent. It is concise but under-specified rather than optimally structured.

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 five-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It conveys the high-level purpose and the report-versus-fact distinction, but it lacks parameter guidance, side-effect disclosure, return behavior, and explicit sibling routing. An agent would need to infer too much before invoking it correctly.

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?

The schema has five parameters with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives some meaning for outcome by mentioning REPORTED and DISPUTED and gestures at the disputed state, but it does not explain instrument_id, source, evidence_ref, or how the parameters map to the two modes. Most parameter meaning is left undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Record' or 'mark', and a specific resource, a venue-reported resolution or dispute. It also names the two conceptual outcomes, REPORTED and DISPUTED, which helps an agent understand the operation. It stops short of explicitly differentiating this tool from siblings such as resolution_verify and resolution_get, so it is clear but not fully self-routing.

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 this tool is used when recording a venue-reported resolution or marking a dispute, and the phrase 'A report is a claim, not a fact' hints at verification workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when to use resolution_verify, resolution_get, or any alternative, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not fully guided.

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