resolve_case

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool resolves a case with human decision, which implies state mutation, but does not detail side effects (e.g., irrevocability, re-opening possibility, or failure conditions). The transparency is functional but incomplete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, and adds a clarifying property in the second sentence. Every word serves a purpose with no repetition or fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action but lacks details on return values, error handling, or parameter formats (e.g., expected decision string). For a simple action tool it is minimally adequate but not fully 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?

Schema coverage is only 25% (only repoPath has a description). The description adds no new information about parameters like id, decision, or note. It does not explain valid values for 'decision' or the purpose of 'note,' leaving agents to infer from parameter names alone.

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 ('Resolve one open case with a human decision') and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting its unique availability and lack of elicitation requirement. This makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct.

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 only hints at availability ('Always available, no elicitation capability required') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_case_queue or other siblings. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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