resolve_reopened

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that keep_current clears a flag, reaffirm_prior restores a value through an authorized revert path, uses a capability, and stamps the value with PROJECT scope. It also hints at the return shape. It omits permission requirements and audit side effects, but the core behavioral traits are 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 a compact two-sentence definition with all information packed. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence is dense and could be more scannable with structured lists. Every sentence contributes value, though readability is moderate.

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 complex governance mutation with no output schema, the description covers the decision paths and partial return shape. But it omits error cases, how to obtain the id, behavior for invalid decisions, and the exact meaning of 'resolved' and 'key'. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 must compensate. It explains the two allowed decision values and their consequences, and clarifies the capability parameter's role in the reaffirm path. However, it leaves the 'id' parameter ambiguous (presumably the reopened review id) and does not specify when capability is required vs optional beyond the configured condition.

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: a steward decision to close a reopened review, with two specific decision values and their differing effects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'reopened' (likely opens/lists reopenings) and 'revert' (directly reverts a value) by naming the resource and the decision action.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use each decision value: keep_current for false alarms, reaffirm_prior to restore a prior value via the authorized revert path. It also notes the configuration condition for the revert capability. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'revert' or 'remember_decision') or state when not to use this tool.

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