calibrated_consult_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers meaningful behavior: it is a fail-closed mutation that rejects the call without an existing prediction and a valid outcome type, and it feeds the overreliance-axis calibration. It stops short of saying what failure looks like (error vs no-op) or whether a set outcome can be overwritten.

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?

Four tight sentence-fragments with the action front-loaded, then shape, then effect, then prerequisites and cross-reference. Dense but every fragment carries information; only the terse 'occurred|actual' shorthand costs clarity.

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 a nested object at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does substantial work (shape, fail-closed prerequisite, journal cross-reference) but leaves the outcome payload underspecified and the resolve-vs-close distinction unaddressed for a tool in a three-part consult lifecycle.

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 the outcome parameter is an opaque nested object, so the description must compensate – and it does partially by enumerating the shape {resolved_on, occurred|actual, endorsed?}. But the 'occurred|actual' alternation is ambiguous (two field names or one?) and consult_id is never explained, leaving real gaps for a nested object.

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 action verb ('Проставить ИСХОД' – set the outcome) on a named resource (consult), and anchors the effect ('Кормит калибровку оси оверрелайанса'). Sibling differentiation is partial: it points to calibrated_consult_journal for the summary but never clarifies how this differs from calibrated_consult_close, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Gives a usage condition ('когда факт лёг' – when the fact has landed) and a prerequisite ('нужен прогноз в консульте'), which is better than nothing. However it never states when to use this instead of calibrated_consult_close, nor any when-not conditions, leaving the open/close/resolve lifecycle ambiguous.

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