governance_resolve_failure_policy

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. It only states a negative constraint ('without accepting an off/unrecorded mode') but does not reveal whether the tool mutates state, what triggers success/failure, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a governance tool that likely writes policy.

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 sentence with no fluff, but the brevity sacrifices essential information. It is not a pointless word waste, but it is under-specified to the point of harming clarity.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description omits critical context about the tool's purpose, parameter roles, and behavioral outcomes. For a tool with optional open-object parameters and zero schema coverage, the description should clarify how the tool resolves failure handling and what 'off/unrecorded mode' means, but it does not.

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 has two parameters (task and profile) with no descriptions and 0% coverage, yet the description does not mention them at all. The agent is left completely uninformed about what values these parameters take or how they influence the resolution process.

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 the verb 'resolve' with 'failure handling' as a resource, indicating an action, but it does not specify what 'resolve' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like governance_prepare_failure_record. The additional constraint 'without accepting an off/unrecorded mode' provides some specificity but leaves the core functionality vague.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a basis for selecting this tool among the many governance_* siblings.

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