cleanuparr_resolve_manual_event

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the destructiveHint annotation already conveys. It does not explain what 'resolved' means, whether it's reversible, or what effects it has on the event. The annotation covers the destructive nature, so the bar is lower, but there is no added context about the operation's consequences.

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 sentence with no superfluous words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly under-specified, but given the simplicity of the tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable.

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 mutation tool with no additional context, the description is minimal. It does not explain how to find or select a manual event, what 'resolved' entails, or how to confirm success beyond the output schema. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the lack of usage context and parameter clarification leaves gaps.

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 has one parameter (event_id) with no description, and the description itself does not mention the parameter at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning or how to obtain it, but it does not. The agent is left to infer that event_id refers to a manual event identifier.

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 one manual event resolved' clearly identifies the action (mark as resolved) and the resource (a manual event), with the scope 'one' distinguishing it from the sibling tool that resolves all manual events. This 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 word 'one' implies that this tool is for a single event, contrasting with the sibling 'resolve_all_manual_events'. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing to fetch event IDs first. Usage is implied but not directly stated.

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