resolve_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that confirm writes state.toml and generates Mermaid/Rust artefacts, that reject is a no-op discard, and that revise discards with a redirect. It omits any statement about permissions, reversibility of an applied change, or failure modes.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and then the three mode outcomes. No filler and no repetition.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key side effects an agent needs before invoking. It could say more about what is returned (e.g., the applied result or redirect target) and whether a confirm is recoverable.

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 100%, so both the enum and the path-override parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond rephrasing the resolution semantics already present in the enum description; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve a pending proposal') and immediately enumerates the three resolution modes with their effects. It is clearly distinct from the propose_* siblings, which create proposals, though it never explicitly names that counterpart.

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 three 'On confirm/reject/revise' clauses effectively describe the behavior tied to each decision, giving the agent enough to choose the right resolution value. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but there is no competing resolve tool to route against.

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