anon_post_onsite_incidents_iid_resolve

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

The description genuinely adds behavior beyond the annotations: it names the required permission (work:manage) and states that the handler and timestamp are recorded. But it also asserts '已处理时幂等不刷新' (idempotent when already handled, no refresh), which directly conflicts with the declared idempotentHint=false, so the added transparency is undercut by a contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by permission, behavior, endpoint, and a scoping note. It is compact and well-ordered, with only mild redundancy from restating the raw endpoint path.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission requirement, recorded side effects, and the auto-resolved project scope. Error cases and response shape are omitted, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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% and there is one nested parameter (iid), so the description carries the burden. It usefully clarifies that the project is auto-derived from the API key and that no projectId should be passed, but it never explains the 'iid' parameter itself, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb+resource+state ('标记异常已处理' = mark an incident as handled) and reinforces it with the endpoint path, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like anon_get_onsite_incidents or anon_post_onsite_incidents. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it does not reach the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb (resolve/handle an incident) and the description adds a real prerequisite ('需 work:manage 权限'), which is useful context. However there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling that creates or lists incidents.

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