intent_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation (sets status, links flow) and the effect on pending_work/planning_context. However, it does not cover reversibility, error handling, or permissions, which would be helpful for a mutation 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 paragraphs, the first sentence is direct. Some background on forward-intents is included but it is relevant for understanding. It is efficient without being overly verbose.

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 the complexity of the domain (forward-intents, flows) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: explains what forward-intents are, when to use, and the effect. It could mention error cases but overall is complete.

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?

Input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that flowId is 'typically your current flow' and that pageId comes from pending_work, plus explaining the optional note. This goes beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Close a forward-intent page' and specifies the effect ('Sets frontmatter.status='resolved' and links the resolving flow'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like doc_page_update and pending_work by explaining the specific intent-closing functionality.

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 explicitly advises when to use: 'When your current flow actually delivers that follow-up, call this tool so the loop is closed.' It also tells where to find the pageId ('via pending_work → openIntents'). It does not include explicit 'when not to use' but the context is clear.

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