resolve_handoff

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description only adds the note about linking a decision on resolution. It does not disclose side effects of claim/resolve/reopen/cancel, expected_version usage, or state transitions, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden. 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and actions, and contains no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope without 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?

Despite annotations and an output schema, the tool has 8 parameters and 4 distinct lifecycle actions, but the description only hints at the resolution-link feature. It lacks crucial context about when each action is appropriate, what expected_version is for, or what resolution/evidence_refs represent, making the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 38% (3 of 8 parameters described), and the description only adds meaning for decision_id via 'link a decision' and enumerates the action values. The other parameters (expected_version, resolution, owner, database_name, resolution_evidence_refs) remain semantically empty beyond their titles, and the description does not compensate.

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 a specific action ('Claim, resolve, reopen, or cancel') on a specific resource ('scoped learning handoff'), which unambiguously defines the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_handoff (creation) and get_handoff (viewing) by focusing on lifecycle management.

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 implies usage for handoff lifecycle management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_handoff or create_handoff. It lists the supported actions, which gives some context, but lacks explicit scenario guidance or exclusions.

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