resolve_action_outcome

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it repairs draft/queue history, cancels queued not_sent work permanently ('never resent automatically'), and warns that wrong not_sent causes duplicates. That is meaningful side-effect disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the trigger condition and the mutation/reset warning are front-loaded. The only blemish is the unexplained 'X' placeholder, which reads like an unfilled template slot rather than deliberate brevity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. For a low-complexity, three-param mutation tool, the description covers the trigger, the side effects on queue/draft state, the permanence of cancellation, and the risk of misuse. Only the semantics of account/action_id are left uncovered.

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 0% and there is no enum, so the schema contributes nothing about parameter meaning. The description partially compensates by enumerating the observed_outcome domain ('succeeded' or 'not_sent'), which is the most important parameter, but 'account' and 'action_id' remain unexplained in both description and 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?

States a specific verb ('record') and resource ('action outcome', with the 'succeeded' or 'not_sent' values) tied to a precondition ('after inspecting... an uncertain action'). It is distinguishable from siblings like cancel_queued_action and process_queue, though it never names them. The 'inspecting X' placeholder is slightly opaque about the source of the observation.

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?

Implies the usage context well: use it after externally inspecting an uncertain action's outcome. It also gives a consequence warning ('Incorrect not_sent can cause duplicates'), which is real guidance. However, it never names alternatives (cancel_queued_action, process_queue, list_queue) or states when NOT to use it versus simply re-queuing.

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