sentry_resolve_issue

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 mutation but says nothing about required permissions, whether the change is reversible, what side effects (muting alerts, notifications) occur, or what the response looks like. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and enumerable actions, and no wasted words. It is appropriately terse, though the phrase 'Update a Sentry issue status' is mildly redundant with the tool name.

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 and no output schema, the description should at least mention return/confirmation behavior or the ignoreDuration/action coupling. The enum and param docs cover some ground, but the definition leaves important operational context missing.

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 67%, with issueId and ignoreDuration documented in the schema and action explained by its enum. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction details (e.g. ignoreDuration only applies when action is 'ignore'), so it sits at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Update) plus resource (Sentry issue status) and enumerates the three supported actions, so an agent can tell this is the mutation tool rather than the read-oriented siblings like sentry_get_issue or sentry_list_issues. The name says 'resolve' but the description usefully reveals it also handles ignore/unresolve, adding value beyond the title. It does not name a sibling it must not be confused with, so it stops short of a 5.

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 lists what the actions are but gives no guidance on when to use each one, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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