human_required_resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the row is updated in place, never deleted, and returns unknown_item for missing IDs. This covers key safety-relevant traits, though it does not describe behavior for already-resolved items or permission requirements.

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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and acceptable statuses, the second covers behavioral guarantees and the error case. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 small mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the core effects, accepted statuses, and an error return. It could mention the default status or note optionality, but the input schema already provides those defaults, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'status' parameter's valid values and the 'note' parameter's role in the in-place update. 'app_id' and 'item_id' are self-explanatory from their names, and 'item_id' is referenced in the unknown_item return behavior. Some parameter specifics are left implicit, but the most important semantics are provided.

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 states a specific action ('Resolve / dismiss / acknowledge') applied to a 'human-required queue item', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like human_required_enqueue, human_required_list, and gap_resolve. It immediately conveys what the tool does and its scope.

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 implies when to use this tool: whenever a human-required queue item needs to be resolved, dismissed, or acknowledged. It lists the valid statuses, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Clear context, though no exclusions are provided.

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