rr_resolve_replenishment_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses idempotency, the requirement for idempotency_key and expected_updated_at, and a stale-state conflict contract. This is sufficient behavioral context for a mutation-like tool, though it omits authorization needs and return value details.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the key purpose and behavioral traits. No unnecessary information is present.

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?

For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (idempotency, conflict contract) and the action's outcome. However, it assumes knowledge of the 'execute' tool's contract and does not describe return values or what 'no-action' entails fully.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (e.g., 'as no-action with a reason' clarifies the reason parameter's purpose). It does not provide syntax or format details for parameters.

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 verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'replenishment action' with a specific outcome ('as no-action with a reason'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like rr_execute_replenishment_action and rr_retry_replenishment_action.

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 the tool is used for resolving actions as no-action and mentions the idempotent and conflict contract, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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