resolve_defect

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects, validation rules, or what happens if the defect is already resolved. It relies solely on the implied mutation from 'mark as resolved'.

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 5 words, extremely concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain return values, behavioral expectations (e.g., is it reversible?), or how it integrates with the defect lifecycle. The context from sibling tools suggests more detail is needed.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on how 'code' and 'id' relate to the action of resolving a defect. No extra meaning is added beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 'Mark a defect as resolved' clearly states the action (verb 'mark') and the resource (defect) with a specific outcome (resolved). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_defect' or 'update_defect_status' by being narrowly focused on resolution, but lacks context about what 'resolved' entails, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_defect_status' or 'update_defect'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., defect must exist, permissions) or typical scenarios, leaving the agent with little decision support.

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