resolve_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive behavior of the default remove mode ("delete it") and the tick format, which is meaningful behavioral context. But it omits permission requirements, behavior when ref is invalid, and the role of index/match/collection.

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 compact sentences with the default behavior front-loaded before the alternative. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the tick-format example is slightly cryptic.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, the description covers the core modes but is incomplete on ref selection semantics (index/match/collection) and edge cases. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is only 14% (just ref documented), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for mode, record_in (with default and example), and implies answer, but leaves index, match, and collection entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Resolve an open question") and elaborates the two resolution modes. It is clear what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like questions, next_question, or add_question.

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?

It explains the default mode ("remove") and the alternative ("tick"), which is genuine usage guidance for mode selection. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling question-management tools, so routing is only implied.

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