Create Tracker resolution

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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false / idempotent=false / openWorld=true, the description supplies the critical missing behavioral fact: the resource is org-wide and irreversible because no delete endpoint exists. That is exactly the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before invoking a create tool, and it goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 followed by a front-loaded CAUTION sentence; the purpose statement comes first and the risk warning immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 single-parameter create tool with a fully documented nested schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, irreversibility and field meaning. It omits any hint about what the call returns (e.g. the created resolution object), which is a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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 already 100% (key character rules, en/ru name fields), so the baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by clarifying the semantic split between the two fields: 'key' is the latin machine identifier while 'name' carries the ru/en display names.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Create an org-global issue resolution') plus a plain-language gloss of what a resolution is ('a close-out reason such as fixed/duplicate') and its org-wide scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tracker_resolutions_update / tracker_resolutions_list, but the scope qualifier and definition make the purpose unambiguous.

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 CAUTION block gives strong when-not-to-use guidance: resolutions are organisation-wide and there is no delete endpoint, so creation leaves permanent residue. That is real decision-support. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. tracker_resolutions_update for editing an existing one), so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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