resolve_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (recording who/when/note), that resolving an already-resolved message is a no-op, that the response lists 'unblocked' tasks, that surfacing is symmetric until the other party confirms or reopens, and that notes are capped at 4000 characters.

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 long but every sentence adds necessary nuance about role etiquette, symmetric surfacing, no-op behavior, unblocked-task handling, and character limits. Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest builds logically from mechanism to etiquette to explicit prohibitions.

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 tool with two parameters, meaningful side effects, and role-based etiquette, this description is complete. It explains the response's 'unblocked' list, behavior on repeated calls, legitimate and illegitimate uses, and cross-tool routing to reopen_message and confirm_resolution; the existence of an output schema covers the need to document exact return fields.

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 compensate. It adds real meaning for resolution_note: optional, capped at 4000 characters, and carries substantive semantics like 'cancelled, not needed' or naming what was done. message_id is only implied by context and the schema title, not explicitly explained, which is the main gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark an action_required message as resolved.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming reopen_message and confirm_resolution as the alternatives for unsatisfied or satisfied verification, so an agent can select this tool over 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for both roles: the addressee resolves with a note naming what was done, while the author verifies and uses reopen_message if unsatisfied or confirm_resolution if satisfied. It also states what is NOT legitimate — resolving a debt the other side owes as if the work were done — and describes a legitimate self-cancellation case.

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