resolve_annotation

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that stale writes are refused and that a revision from retrieval is mandatory. This adds meaningful concurrency and safety context. It could go further on what happens to the annotation's other fields, but the core behavioral trait is covered.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler; the prerequisite and the stale-write warning are front-loaded and directly useful.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key operational facts: required revision and stale-write rejection. The gap is minor, mostly around the unmentioned projectPath and annotationId, which are self-descriptive names.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies the meaning of expectedRevision ('revision returned by retrieval') and implies status via 'resolve or reopen', but it says nothing about projectPath or annotationId. The added meaning is partial rather than complete.

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 names a specific verb pair ('resolve or reopen') and the resource ('annotation'), and the word 'explicitly' distinguishes it from passive retrieval siblings like get_annotation or list_annotations. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 clearly states the prerequisite ('Requires the revision returned by retrieval'), which effectively tells the agent to call a retrieval tool first. It doesn't spell out when to reopen versus resolve, but the context of a stale-write refusal gives strong usage guidance.

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