feedbug_resolve_bug

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Mark a bug as resolved' without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or whether the action is reversible. The precondition 'after fixing it' is helpful but insufficient for full behavioral transparency.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The first states the action, the second provides the usage context. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter state-change tool, the description covers the basic purpose and usage condition. However, it lacks information about the return value or confirmation of success, and no output schema exists to fill that 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 coverage is 100% (the one parameter 'id' is described in the schema as 'Feedback UUID or Linear identifier'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the verb 'Mark' and the resource 'bug as resolved'. It distinguishes from sibling tools (listing, getting, adding comments) by specifying a state-change action. No ambiguity.

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 provides an explicit condition: 'Use this when you have fixed the issue reported in a FeedBug bug.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., adding a comment).

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