resolve_reopened

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It states the concrete effects of both decision values, explains the capability requirement in the revert path, and describes the return shape. This goes well beyond a generic 'resolves reopened reviews' statement.

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 front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and then expands with necessary decision and capability details. Every clause adds information: the two decision semantics, the capability condition, the anti-laundering rationale, and the return shape. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it gives valid decision values, side effects, the capability condition, and a return snapshot. Slight gaps remain around error behavior and what happens when no revert authority is configured, so it is not perfect, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explicitly enumerates the valid decision values, explains when 'capability' is needed and why, and implicitly anchors 'id' to the reopened review being closed. This adds substantive semantics for all three parameters despite no schema-level documentation.

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 identifies the verb ('resolve'), the resource ('a reopened review'), and the steward context. It differentiates the two decisions (keep_current vs reaffirm_prior), so an agent understands exactly what this tool accomplishes and can distinguish it from related tools like 'reopened' and 'revert'.

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 opening phrase 'Steward decision to close a reopened review' gives clear situational context and signals that this is the tool to call when a reopened review needs a steward-issued final decision. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough.

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