clock_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions re-saving, hinting at mutation, but does not state that clock settings may be altered, whether changes are reversible, what happens on resolution failure, or whether the project must be open. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere.

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 mutating, save-triggering tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what resolution does, what the result looks like, or under what conditions the agent should use it safely.

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 both project_id and save are documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('clock issue resolver') and the underlying CLI command, but 'issue resolver' is jargon that doesn't explain what the tool actually fixes or how it differs from clock_set/clock_get. An agent can infer it resolves clock configuration conflicts, but the purpose remains somewhat opaque.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus clock_set, clock_get, or clock_param_possible_values, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must guess the scenario in which resolution is appropriate.

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