Edit Tracker resolution

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: PATCH-style partial-update semantics and an optimistic-locking guard via `version`. It does not say what happens when `version` is omitted or whether the edit requires specific permissions, keeping it out of the top band.

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 short paragraphs with the core action front-loaded and each sentence carrying distinct information (partial update, id form, locking). No filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers partial-update behaviour and concurrency guarding adequately. It omits edge-case behaviour (missing/`null` version, permission requirements) and leaves the id-vs-key discrepancy with the schema unresolved.

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 nested body fields are fully documented, so the schema already carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful distinction that `resolution_id` is the numeric id, but this actually conflicts with the schema's "Resolution id or key, from resolutions_list", creating ambiguity rather than clarity.

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+resource pair ("Edit an issue resolution") and immediately scopes the operation ("only the fields set in body are changed"). It is distinguishable from tracker_resolutions_create and tracker_resolutions_list by the verb, but neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 this is for modifying an existing resolution and tells the caller to supply the numeric id, but it never states when to use this versus tracker_resolutions_create or how to obtain the current version value before calling. Usage context is inferable rather than explicit.

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