resolve_problem

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with side effects (openWorldHint=true). The description adds the requirement WRITE_ENABLED=true but does not disclose further behavioral details like state changes or irreversibility. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and a key requirement. No redundant information.

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 simple mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention the effect on the problem state, but it is still sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's role.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for each. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource 'problem', specifying the action and the inputs (root cause and resolution notes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_problem' (update vs resolve) and 'close_incident' (different resource).

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 mentions a prerequisite (requires WRITE_ENABLED=true) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_problem or close_incident. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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