resolve_working_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (mark resolved) but does not reveal side effects: whether it is reversible, whether it deletes or hides the note, whether it requires certain permissions, or if it affects the associated task status. This is significant 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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly under-specified, missing useful context that could be added without breaking conciseness. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 has low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), so a minimal description might suffice. Yet it lacks any mention of post-conditions, error cases, or how resolution affects other tools like get_task_notes. Given the existence of sibling notes-related tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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 describes both parameters (task_id, note_id) with simple descriptions at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as the relationship between task and note or the expected format. Baseline 3 applies because schema already covers the parameters adequately.

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 'Mark a working note as resolved' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like add_working_note (creation) and escalate_working_note (escalation), making the purpose 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 usage: resolve a note when its content is no longer relevant or issue is addressed. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like escalate_working_note or update_task. It lacks any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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