Resolve feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait — the reply is surfaced in the viewer next to the request — and that closing is a terminal action, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what happens when only some items succeed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the visible side effect. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence is a side note rather than core invocation guidance.

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 covers the intent and one side effect but omits the result shape, partial-failure behavior, and whether a batch must be all-or-nothing. Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should compensate; it does partly by explaining that a reply records 'what changed, or why not' and that declines are a variant of closing. It adds no detail on deck_id or batching semantics beyond the schema's own nested field descriptions.

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 concrete verb ('close') and resource ('change requests') plus the two possible dispositions (changes made, or declined). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_feedback and reply_feedback, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 clause 'after making the code changes (or declining them)' implies the moment to call it, i.e. once work on a request is finished. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the sibling tools that read or reply to feedback.

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