blocker.resolve

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

Goes well beyond the single idempotentHint annotation: it discloses the persisted field (resolved_at), the event side effect, downstream effects on context and handoffs, the exact success payload, and the error case for unknown IDs. It also flags the subtle nuance that re-resolving succeeds but emits another event, which an agent needs to reason about the interaction with idempotentHint.

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 primary effect is front-loaded in the first clause, then return value, error behavior, repeat-call behavior, and ID provenance each get one short sentence. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description supplies the return shape, failure mode, and side effects, so an agent has everything required to invoke it correctly. The only ambiguity (whether re-resolution should be avoided) is explicitly described rather than hidden.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline would be a 3. The description does add the intended source of the value (blocker.list), which the schema only partially mirrors.

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 (mark a blocker resolved) and enumerates the concrete effects: sets resolved_at, logs a blocker.resolved event, removes it from open blockers in context and handoffs. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like blocker.create and blocker.list.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where to obtain the required argument ("Get the ID from blocker.list"). It does not, however, spell out when not to use it or point to a separate tool for unresolving/reopening, so alternatives are only partially covered.

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