confirm_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers idempotency ('Idempotent per resolution'), side effects ('logged to message_history as 'resolution_confirmed''), constraints ('Notes and reasons are at most 4000 characters'), and the rule about who can call it. This is comprehensive and goes beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides context. Every sentence adds value: the loop explanation, idempotency, logging, length limit, and restriction. It is appropriately detailed without being verbose or redundant.

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 the behavioral context, side effects, and usage scenario thoroughly. Since an output schema exists, it need not describe return values. The only gap is the lack of explicit parameter semantics, but that is addressed separately. Overall, the tool is well-contextualized and an agent can call it correctly despite the param gap.

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 explain the parameters, but it does not. It never mentions 'message_id' or its meaning, and only refers to 'notes' indirectly via 'Notes and reasons' without mapping it to the 'note' parameter. The description provides almost no parameter guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('a resolution you verified'), and clearly distinguishes it from the other half of the debt loop ('resolve_message' implied). The phrase 'closing half of the debt loop' immediately sets it apart from its siblings.

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 explicitly explains when to use it: when a resolved obligation surfaces in channel_status().resolved_for_you of the participant who did NOT resolve it, and contrasts it with the alternative of reopening. It also states the restriction that the resolver cannot confirm their own resolution, which prevents misuse.

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