Submit task resolution

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 reveals important traits: moves to human review, never marks done, never edits description, requires structured resolution, and distinguishes verified/unverified claims. However, it does not cover other aspects like permissions, failure modes, or reversibility.

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 concise and front-loaded, using three focused sentences to convey purpose and key constraints. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and zero annotation coverage, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It explains purpose and some behavior but does not describe required inputs, return values, or how to structure the resolution, leaving the agent under-informed.

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%, and the description mentions no parameter names or details. It only vaguely refers to 'STRUCTURED resolution' and 'verified vs unverified claims', which does not help the agent understand the required outcome and summary fields or the variety of optional parameters. This is a severe 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: submitting a structured resolution after completing work. It explicitly distinguishes itself from related actions by noting it never marks the task done or edits the task description, making it identifiable among siblings like alabasta_mark_ready_for_review.

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 indicates use after completing work and clarifies that it does not mark the task done, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. It implies usage context but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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