twining_resolve

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool persists a 'resolved' status with resolver identity and an optional note, that the entry leaves the open triage/assemble lane, and that it remains as searchable history. This clearly communicates side effects and outcomes.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then provides valuable usage context and a distinction from a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and retention. It could mention return values or error conditions, but these are not essential for this straightforward resolution action. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no incremental parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides; it only paraphrases the 'resolver identity' and 'optional note' aspects already covered.

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 uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('open blackboard items'), enumerates item types (needs, questions, warnings), and clearly distinguishes itself from twining_dismiss. The phrase 'everyday exit for open items' reinforces the tool's role.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool and contrasts it with an alternative: 'This is the everyday exit for open items — use twining_dismiss only for noise that should never have been recorded.' This provides clear contextual guidance relative to siblings.

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