resolve_note

Does 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 genuinely useful behavior: the reply text is shown to the user beneath the note, and status="open" reopens rather than resolves. It omits permissions/auth requirements, whether replying to an already-resolved note is allowed, and what happens on failure — significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action, then nests the mechanism and the alternate mode parenthetically. No filler, every clause adds information the schema lacks.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to explain the two modes and the user-visible effect of the reply. The unexplained path parameter and the absence of any error or idempotency note keep it from fully covering the call.

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 supply all parameter meaning. It explains reply ('say what was fixed', visibly shown to the user) and status ("open" reopens), but says nothing about path — an unlabeled string the agent must guess at — and does not state whether reply is optional or required per mode.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: answering a 'Studio Live note', with the two possible outcomes (mark resolved vs. reopen). An agent can tell this apart from review_notes, which presumably lists notes rather than answering them. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 clearly conveys the situation the tool is for (responding to a note already in hand) and describes the two modes: resolve, or reopen with status="open". It does not say where note_id comes from, whether review_notes must be called first, or when this should not be used, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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