Mark an unknown as resolved, out-of-scope, or investigating (or reopen it) with a note. Resolved unknowns leave the release while the audit log retains history.
Mark an unknown resolved / out-of-scope / investigating (or reopen it) with a note. Resolved unknowns leave the release; the audit log keeps the history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| unknown_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behavioral traits: resolved unknowns leave the release, and the audit log retains history. It omits whether reopening restores the unknown to the release, whether the operation is idempotent, and any permission requirements.
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 sentences, both earning their place: the first states the action and states, the second states the consequences. Front-loaded and zero waste.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the side effects on release/audit are covered. However, for a required status parameter with no enum and no schema descriptions, the missing enumeration of valid status values is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must define all three parameters. It mentions 'a note' and hints at status values, but never states which exact strings status accepts — 'reopen' reads as an action here, yet status is a required free-form string, leaving genuine ambiguity about valid values.
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/reopen) plus the concrete resource (an unknown) and names the resulting states (resolved / out-of-scope / investigating). It is clearly distinguishable from record_unknown or list_feature_unknowns, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
It implies the right context — resolving, scoping out, or reopening an unknown — but never states when to use this versus record_unknown (create) or who is allowed to do it. The guidance is inferable rather than explicit, with no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.