resolve_claims_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: per-claim success or retryable failure, and isolation so failed claims do not affect successful siblings. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or batch-size limits, but partial-failure semantics are the key trait for a batch mutation and are stated explicitly.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and precondition. The trailing clause about the legacy verify_claims tool is mildly tangential but does carry routing information, so it mostly earns its place.

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-value detail is not required, and the partial-failure behavior is covered. But with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the missing batch-size bound, failure-retry path (a retry_extraction sibling exists), and run_id semantics leave real gaps for a batch mutation tool.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the schema adds no meaning for run_id or claim_ids, and the description does not explain either. 'Bounded batch' hints that claim_ids has a size limit but never states the bound, so it fails to compensate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('resolve a bounded batch of persisted claims') plus the precondition ('after counterevidence review'), which separates it from the sibling verify_claims. It is not tautological and an agent can tell what the tool does, though 'resolve' itself is left somewhat abstract.

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 phrase 'after counterevidence review' gives an implied ordering precondition, and verify_claims is named as an alternative. However, it only says verify_claims 'remains available' rather than stating when to pick one over the other, so the routing guidance is weak.

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