Resolve an issue recovery action

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is clear. The description adds the HTTP method (POST) and authorization class (board_or_agent) but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or what happens if the action is already resolved.

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 concise with two sentences: one for the action and one for technical details. No redundant information, but it could be better structured to include parameter hints.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (required body parameters with enums, optional fields, and an output schema), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not explain any parameters (outcome, actionId, resolutionNote, sourceIssueStatus) beyond the schema definition. The agent receives no semantic help for constructing valid inputs.

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 title and description clearly state 'Resolve an issue recovery action', which specifies the verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like pc_get_issues_by_id_recovery_actions that list actions. However, it could be more explicit about what 'resolve' entails in terms of outcomes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pc_get_issues_by_id_recovery_actions or other issue mutation tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context are mentioned.

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