annotate_resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states a key side effect: 'They stay visible on the page but dim' and explains the rationale ('so the human can see what you handled'). This goes beyond a simple state change and helps the agent anticipate the visual outcome. It does not cover reversibility or error behavior, but that is acceptable for a simple tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds a valuable behavioral note about visibility and dimming. There is no wasted verbiage; every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the visible after-effect. The input schema fully documents the parameter, and sibling tool context implies a family of annotate operations. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter 'ids' with description 'Mark ids to resolve.' The tool description adds some conceptual context by referring to 'items' and 'acted on them,' but it doesn't provide additional detail beyond what the schema already states. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb+object structure: 'Mark items as done' clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like annotate_clear (which likely removes annotations) by focusing on a 'done' state, and the phrase 'once you have acted on them' ties it to a workflow step.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: use after acting on an item ('once you have acted on them'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide when to invoke it. It implies a sequential workflow without naming sibling exclusion cases.

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