invariance_signal_resolve

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the specific status transition to 'resolved' and clarifies what that means, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No additional side effects are disclosed, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 single sentence that communicates the action, the state change, and the semantic rationale. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not explain what the id parameter identifies, nor does it describe the return value or any side effects (e.g., whether resolution can be reversed or triggers notifications). The absence of an output schema and the sparse parameter documentation leave minor gaps, though the core action is clear.

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 schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the id parameter or clarify that it refers to the signal identifier, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a clear resource ('a signal'), and the exact effect (moves status to 'resolved'). It also explains the meaning of 'resolved' as 'the underlying issue has been addressed', which distinguishes it from related signal operations like acknowledge, emit, get, or list.

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 condition for when to use the tool: the underlying issue must have been addressed. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer the appropriate trigger.

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