Resolve agent interaction

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing about what resolving does (does it consume the interaction? mutate agent state? block?), so it provides no value beyond structured fields.

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 three-word phrase is not concise so much as under-specified; there is no front-loaded content because there is essentially no content at all. It fails to earn its place by conveying any actionable information.

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 6-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and unspecified side effects, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot know what resolving an interaction does or how answers map to interaction options.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters and 5 required, with nested objects and no output schema. The description says nothing about answers, interactionID, actor, or the option_indices semantics, leaving the burden entirely unmet.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 such as agents_input or agents_interactions_list, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The one-line description is a bare restatement with zero usage context.

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