Resolve Ticket Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden yet discloses almost nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not state whether resolving is reversible, what status the ticket lands in, whether notifications are sent, or permission requirements; only the 'comment added before resolving' ordering is conveyed, which is minor.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and appends the optional behavior. Nothing superfluous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutating tool with zero annotations on a platform full of overlapping status/update tools, the description should at minimum clarify its relationship to set_ticket_status_tool; it does not.

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 100%, so both parameters (comment, ticket_id) are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's 'optionally adding a comment' only restates what the schema already says and adds no new syntax or format detail.

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 (resolve/close) and resource (ticket), which is clear on its own. However it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling set_ticket_status_tool, which could plausibly achieve the same outcome, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the name and description alone.

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 gives no guidance about when to pick this tool over set_ticket_status_tool or update_ticket_tool, nor any preconditions such as whether the ticket must be owned/assigned. There is only implied usage from the verb.

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