update_resolution

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds the '(admin)' authorization constraint, which is genuine value, but says nothing about what gets modified, reversibility, or the localized-name behavior.

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 single tight line with no wasted words and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient, though this brevity is partly what leaves the parameter and behavioral gaps.

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 five parameters, 40% schema coverage, a nested localized-name object, and no output schema, the one-line description is too thin. It should explain version handling, the required key, and the localized name structure since the schema does not.

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 low (40%), so the description should compensate. It names three of five parameters (name, description, order), but omits the required resolutionKey and the version parameter, and does not explain the nested localized-name object treated only as a format hint in the schema.

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?

'Edit a resolution' states a specific verb and resource, and the field list (name, description, order) narrows scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_resolution and get_resolutions, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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 '(admin)' tag hints at a permission requirement but the description never states when to use this tool versus create_resolution or get_resolutions, nor any prerequisites. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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