resolve_alert

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

Annotations already establish this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the concrete side effects: the thesis is updated and the change is logged against the alert. It stops short of saying whether the prior thesis state is recoverable (undo_records exists) or what logging/audit trail results.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then delivers the preconditions and consequences. Nothing is redundant, though the semicolon-joined side-effect clause reads slightly compressed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the core mutation and its side effects are covered. Gaps remain around multi-step usage: what 'unrelated' does to the thesis, how the optional status override interacts with the default verdict-driven transition, and how confidence is applied.

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 80%, so the schema already documents verdict, status, rationale, and confidence. The phrase 'thesis is updated accordingly' reinforces the verdict-to-status mapping that the schema spells out, but the description adds no new parameter semantics of its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Judge an alert', and adds the essential precondition ('after reading the event and the thesis's claims') plus the side effect ('thesis is updated accordingly'). It does not name the closest siblings (set_thesis_outcome, update_thesis), so the boundary between judging an alert and directly editing a thesis is left implicit.

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 clause 'after reading the event and the thesis's claims' implies a usage sequence, telling the agent to gather context first. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative paths (set_thesis_outcome, update_thesis, record_claim) that appear among the siblings.

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