research_migration_resolve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the action is 'auditable' (requires actor and reason), which is a behavioral trait not in annotations. It also clarifies it applies to 'PROPOSED' candidates, implying a state transition. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without waste. The key elements (confirm/reject, candidate, auditable) are all present in a compact form.

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 description covers the core action but omits what happens after the call (e.g., state change, return value) and any prerequisites (e.g., candidate must exist and be in a certain state). With no output schema and a write operation, more context would be needed for full completeness, though the idempotent hint and non-destructive annotation mitigate some risk.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'actor' and 'reason' indirectly via 'auditable actor and reason', but does not explain candidate_id or the meaning of action beyond the enum. The action enum is self-explanatory, but candidate_id is undocumented. This is a significant gap for a 4-param required tool.

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 action (confirm/reject) and the resource (PROPOSED migration candidate), and distinguishes it from siblings like research_migration_scan (which likely scans) and workstream_accept_candidate. The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when you need to explicitly confirm or reject a proposed migration candidate. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (scan, review, etc.) makes the intended use clear. Slight deduction for not naming alternatives directly.

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