resolve_setup

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by clarifying that the operation log remains unchanged (history persists) and that fid must come from open_setups. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not detail all side effects.

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 very concise, providing the core purpose in one line with a brief parenthetical. However, the use of Japanese and technical terms like 'fid' and 'open_setups' may reduce clarity for non-Japanese speakers, and it could be structured better.

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?

With no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It assumes domain knowledge about 'setups' and 'open_setups', and does not explain the result of resolving or how to use the branch parameter.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies that fid should be a value from open_setups, but the branch parameter is completely undocumented, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool marks a setup as resolved, removing it from an unresolved list, and notes that the operation log is unchanged. This provides specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_setup or delete_branch, and the term 'setup' is not defined in context.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to resolve versus delete a setup. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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