Resolve an annotation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a state-changing operation ('mark as handled') but says nothing about permissions, whether resolution is reversible, whether the annotation remains retrievable afterward, or what the note is used for beyond 'how it was addressed'.

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 with no filler. However, its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral and parameter detail rather than being purely efficient.

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 annotations, no output schema, and entirely undocumented parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect on annotation state, the expected note content, or what the caller should expect after 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It only indirectly hints that 'note' records the resolution rationale; 'annotation_id' is never explained, and no format, length, or requiredness details are given.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an annotation as handled' and 'record how it was addressed', which is clearer than the title alone. It does not explicitly separate itself from siblings such as stage_close or findings_store, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus annotations_get, annotations_list, stage_close, or findings_store. The intent can be inferred from 'mark as handled', but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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