kernel_agents_env_resolve

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect: everyone who joined the environment receives a 'letter to resume', meaning this tool fans out notifications and resumes participants. It does not say whether the closure is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to members who do not respond, which is a real gap for a mutation.

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?

Only two short sentences, and the condition is stated early, so it is not bloated. But 'gets a letter to resume' is vague idiom that obscures the actual effect, so the brevity costs clarity rather than buying it.

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?

This is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain effects, permissions, and reversibility. It offers only one side-effect hint and leaves the required 'key' parameter, the outcome, and the consequences for other agents unexplained.

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?

The description never references 'key' or 'note' and adds no meaning about how the key identifies the problem or how the note is used. With only 67% schema description coverage, the description should have compensated, but it leaves the required identifier entirely undocumented.

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 verb 'close' and the object 'environment problem' are present, so the action is roughly inferable as resolving a fixed environment incident. However, the phrasing 'an environment problem of your office that is fixed' is grammatically murky and never explicitly names the resource type (incident/environment problem) in a way that distinguishes it from kernel_agents_env_report or kernel_agents_env_list.

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?

'that is fixed' gives an implicit triggering condition — call this once the problem is resolved. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisite states, and no routing to sibling tools such as env_report or env_list, so the agent must infer the selection logic itself.

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