Resolve issue

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

The description discloses that the tool sets both status and resolution in one call and avoids leaving resolution as 'open', adding value beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and gives meaningful behavioral context.

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, front-loading the core purpose and key details without redundancy. It is highly efficient and all content is valuable.

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?

The description covers essential aspects: purpose, defaults, optional note, and enum validation. It does not explain dry_run or note_private, but these are covered in the schema. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it is adequately complete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description adds context by stating default values for status and resolution, and the optional nature of note. It also references mantis_get_enums for valid overrides, enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Marks an issue as resolved by setting BOTH status and resolution in one call', specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mantis_update_issue or mantis_assign_issue by focusing on the resolution process.

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 explains the default behavior and references mantis_get_enums for valid values, advising when to use this tool for resolution. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives but provides sufficient context for appropriate use.

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