Mark tester feedback resolved

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

Annotations already declare it non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world; the description adds genuinely new context: a developer role requirement and a human-approval gate in the form of confirm: true. It does not state what happens for an unknown id or whether the transition is logged, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: primary action first, inverse path second, preconditions last. Every clause carries load — the build example, the reopen flag, the confirmation rule and the role requirement each change agent behavior.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the action, its reversal, authorization and confirmation. Return/error behavior is unspecified, but with no output schema that is the only remaining gap and does not impede correct invocation.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates by explaining that reopen is the un-resolve path and that confirm encodes human sign-off rather than being a mere flag. The id-to-list_feedback linkage exists in the schema already, so the added value is concentrated on the two non-obvious parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (mark a feedback report resolved) and covers the inverse operation (open it again with reopen: true), so the tool's full state space is clear. It also anchors the identifier to list_feedback, letting an agent distinguish this from listing siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit triggering condition ('after the fix is in a new build'), the exact route for the opposite case (reopen: true), and prerequisites (ask the person first, pass confirm: true, developer role). Nothing about when to use this versus reopening is left to inference.

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