resolve_all

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention irreversibility, side effects on account balances, permission requirements, or what happens to positions that cannot be resolved.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It could be slightly clearer about the market-status qualifier, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format is covered, but the tool is a mutating bulk operation with no annotations, no usage context, and an undocumented parameter. The description leaves out side effects, account semantics, and when to prefer this over 'resolve'.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'account' parameter at all. The agent must infer its meaning from the title and default value, which is not sufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve') and a clear target ('all open positions') with a scope qualifier ('in closed/resolved markets'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'resolve' by indicating a bulk operation, though the phrase 'closed/resolved markets' is slightly ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the singular 'resolve' sibling. The tool name and description imply bulk resolution, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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