gap_resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key trait: this is 'bookkeeping only' and 'does not write to the knowledge base', which is important for an agent to know. However, it does not disclose other potential behaviors such as idempotency, side effects on gap status, or whether it appends a log entry. It gives enough to understand the safety profile but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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 only two sentences, but earns its place. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and the key caveat (no KB write). The second sentence redirects to the appropriate sibling for a verified answer. There is 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 simple bookkeeping tool, the description gives the essential distinction from gap_promote and states the non-destructive nature. However, it lacks parameter semantics and does not explain what state 'worked' or 'answered' sets or how it affects the gap lifecycle. Without an output schema or annotations, a bit more detail about expected behavior and preconditions would make it more complete, but the current level is minimally viable.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. With three parameters (app_id, gap_id, note), the description does not clarify what these identifiers represent or how the note is used. The tool description adds no value beyond the bare parameter names, so the agent must guess semantics from the tool name and context.

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's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a gap as being worked or answered'. It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gap_promote by noting this is 'bookkeeping only' and does not write to the knowledge base. This is unambiguous and separates it from other gap-related operations.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by contrasting with gap_promote: 'Use gap_promote to actually land a verified answer and close the gap out.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, and implies this tool is for intermediate state tracking rather than finalizing. It effectively answers 'when to use' and 'when to use something else'.

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