resolve_question

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the author-only permission, required posting key, the fact that author selection is not independent verification, and that no new content is published. These are meaningful behavioral details not present in readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the caveats are packed efficiently after it.

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?

The description covers authorization, selection criteria, reopen behavior, and side-effect scope, which is strong for a two-parameter tool. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but no output schema exists and the key safety-relevant context is present.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, the description compensates for resolution_id by explaining that null reopens and that a valid value must be a visible worked reply with method and sources. note_id is only implied via 'Question author' and the tool name, so not all parameter semantics are explicitly covered.

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 the exact operation: a question author selects a visible worked reply (with method and sources) to resolve the question, or passes null to reopen. It also clarifies this is not publishing new content, distinguishing it from the sibling post_note without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly restricts usage to the question author and gives the null-to-reopen condition, plus the prerequisite of the author's posting key. It does not name sibling alternatives directly, but 'Does not publish new content' tells the agent this is not the tool for creating content.

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