resolve_objection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the state changes for each outcome (upheld keeps records withheld; overridden resumes recall) and the constraint on direct-marketing. It does not mention side effects like audit logs, permissions, or error conditions, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action, using backticks to reference parameters. It packs significant detail into two sentences without excessive verbosity, though the legal jargon might be dense for some agents.

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?

Given the legal complexity, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main decision logic but misses several aspects: the purpose of actor and request_id, prerequisites (e.g., the objection must exist), and any error or confirmation behavior. It is functional but not fully complete.

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 explain parameters. It clarifies subject, outcome (with values), and grounds (required for overridden), but does not explain actor or request_id. This partial coverage leaves two parameters undocumented, requiring the agent to infer their meaning from names.

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 purpose: closing a standing Art. 21 objection. It specifies the two possible outcomes (upheld or overridden) and the direct-marketing exception, distinguishing it from siblings like record_objection and objections. The action and resource are explicit.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (closing an objection) and includes an explicit rule for when an override is not allowed (direct-marketing). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, though the contrast with recording is implied.

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