Resolve Advisor Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the primary effect (marking resolved) but does not disclose idempotency, reversibility, permissions, or what happens if the note is already resolved. This is a minimal description that leaves important behavioral questions unanswered for a state-changing operation.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action without any superfluous words. It is optimally concise and well-structured for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and what input is required, but it does not address edge cases (e.g., already-resolved notes) or the meaning of 'resolved' in the broader workflow. This is a viable but incomplete description.

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 for the single parameter is 100% ('The note ID to resolve'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. It does not clarify formats, sources, or validation rules, but the schema is sufficient.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Mark...as resolved') and identifies the resource ('advisor note/action item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'advisor_notes' (which likely lists notes) and 'resolve_insight' (which resolves a different entity). The purpose is immediately evident.

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 usage—when you need to resolve a note—but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_insight' or mention any exclusions. Since the context is straightforward and the action is clear from the name, it meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks explicit guidance.

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