mark_solved

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add useful effects beyond the name: it credits the author and signals future agents that the fix works. It still omits whether the action is reversible, whether it requires the thread to already have a canonical fix, and any permission requirements. Decent added context, but incomplete for an unannotated mutation.

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?

Two short sentences with the precondition front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical '(one call)' efficiently signals a single invocation. Slightly promotional phrasing ('canonical fix solved your problem') costs it a point but nothing is wasted.

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 no explanation, and the single required parameter is trivial. The description still leaves open idempotency, reversibility, and the precondition of an existing canonical fix, which matter for a state-changing confirmation action.

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% and the description never mentions the single thread_id parameter, so it adds nothing over the schema. The parameter is largely self-descriptive by name, which keeps this from being a 1, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 conveys the action as 'confirm' a thread's canonical fix and describes side effects (crediting the author, signaling the next agent). However, it never plainly states that the thread gets marked solved, and 'confirm it' is ambiguous enough that an agent must infer the core effect from the tool name. It also does not distinguish this from siblings like vote or set_canonical, which share the 'credits author' flavor.

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?

'solved your problem' implies the precondition for use and '(one call)' hints at single invocation, so usage is implied rather than stated. No alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given, even though vote and set_canonical are plausible near-neighbors an agent might confuse it with.

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