Resolve, dismiss or reopen a finding

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It explains the note requirement for resolve/dismiss, the rationale (the note is 'the only record of why'), and the consequences of misusing statuses ('a wrongly closed one costs an incident'). This is rich behavioral context.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then branching into conditional usage. Every sentence provides actionable guidance; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity of status transitions and the lack of annotations/output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers decision criteria, prerequisites (note), fallback guidance, and the reasoning behind each choice, leaving no significant ambiguity.

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 only 33% (only note has a description), so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic meaning of each status value, the conditional requirement for note, and the importance of id (implicitly). The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record what happened to a finding, and describe the solution.' It specifies the three statuses (resolved, dismissed, open) and distinguishes each, making it distinct from sibling tools like claim_finding or list_findings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions with conditions: 'Use resolved only once a release carrying the fix has reported and the numbers have moved,' 'Use dismissed only for something that is genuinely not a problem,' and 'Use open to undo either.' It also advises on uncertainty and the trade-offs, exceeding typical guidance.

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