resolve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on the key trait: it makes explicit that the question is not deleted but kept 'readable as history'. It does not address permissions, whether the edge is reversible, or what the response contains, leaving some behavioral gaps 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 purpose, mechanism, and one alternative are covered, which is reasonable for a 3-parameter tool. But with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented `initiative` parameter, the definition leaves an agent guessing about scoping and return behavior.

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 only 67% and the description compensates partially by explaining the roles of `question` and `by` ('recording that `by` answers it'). However, the `initiative` parameter is described nowhere in either the schema or the description.

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?

States a specific verb (resolve), resource (open question), and the exact mechanism: a supersedes edge from the answer to the question. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming close_review as the matching verb for flag-raised doubts.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('resolve an open question') and routes the agent away for one case: doubts raised by flag should use close_review. It does not cover other nearby siblings such as supersede or settle, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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