resolve_duplicate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that an API token is required. It does not disclose whether resolving a duplicate is destructive, reversible, or what the outcome is on the underlying data.

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 text is compact and free of filler, but it is under-specified for an operation with behavioral unknowns. The action is front-loaded, but the missing context means the brevity is not appropriately balanced with informativeness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a semantically vague verb, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what happens when it is called. It fails to describe the result, side effects, or relationship to merge_duplicate, leaving important call decisions to inference.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully (id as the report ID, notes as optional resolution notes), so the 100% schema coverage warrants the baseline score of 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters are used.

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 states a verb and resource ('Resolve a duplicate report'), but 'resolve' is never defined—it could mean mark as resolved, close, or perform some other state change. It also does not differentiate this tool from its sibling merge_duplicate, which is a closely related duplicate-handling action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of report_duplicate, merge_duplicate, or get_duplicates. The only qualification, 'API token required,' is an authentication prerequisite rather than a usage context.

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