resolve_discussion

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the prerequisite, the automatic recording as a project decision with rationale, and the long-term effect on future briefings. It could mention irreversibility or discussion state change, but overall is quite 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Highly concise.

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 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the tool's effect well—prerequisite, action, and long-term impact. It does not specify return value or discussion state post-close, but these are minor omissions for a relatively simple tool.

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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. The description does not mention any of the four parameters (discussion_id, agent_id, resolution, rationale). This is a significant gap; agents have no guidance on parameter semantics beyond their names and types.

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 closes a discussion and makes it binding project memory, using specific verb 'close' and resource 'discussion'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'open_discussion' and 'post_to_discussion' by emphasizing permanence and binding nature.

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 a clear prerequisite (positions from 2 agents) and explains the consequence (binding project memory, no re-litigation). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the context from sibling tools makes it reasonably clear this is for finalization.

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