resolve_exception

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavioral effects. It indicates a state change but does not disclose details such as whether expected_revision is used for concurrency, whether resolved_at is auto-set or user-supplied, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure.

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 a single declarative sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and contains no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the amount of information it conveys.

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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin for an agent to invoke the tool reliably. It omits parameter-level semantics, behavioral side effects, confirmation/return behavior, and failure conditions, leaving important decisions to guesswork.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond the generic idea of an exception. The purpose of expected_revision is non-obvious, and resolved_at's behavior is unstated. The description provides minimal contextual help but does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Mark... as resolved') and identifies the resource ('a previously recorded exception') plus the qualifying condition ('after a successful re-check or remediation'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_exception, which creates exceptions, and get_exceptions, which reads them.

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 states when the tool is appropriate: after a successful re-check or remediation. It implicitly places this tool after record_exception and gives concrete timing context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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