briefing_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose a meaningful, non-obvious side effect: the answer is also written as a decision event (decision.briefing_resolved). This tells the agent the call is a mutation with cross-cutting persistence. It still omits failure modes, idempotency, and whether closing is reversible.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by when-to-call guidance and the side effect. The phrasing 'in whatever session that happens' is slightly loose, but every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, timing, cardinality, and the persistence side effect. It is nearly complete, missing only sibling routing (briefing_dismiss) and edge-case behavior.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (resolution = user's decision in own words; briefing_id = briefing item ID). The description adds no syntax, format, or addressing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Record the user's answer to a pending decision and close it.' This is unambiguous and distinct from lookup siblings like briefing_list. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, briefing_dismiss, which also affects a briefing item.

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?

Provides clear timing guidance ('Call it the moment the user answers, in whatever session that happens') and a cardinality rule ('one call per answered item'). It stops short of naming exclusions or alternatives such as briefing_dismiss, so it gives context but no routing between siblings.

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