resolve_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the state change but does not say whether the action is reversible, whether permissions are required, what status transitions occur, or whether any side effects (e.g., notifications) are triggered. This is a notable gap for a write operation.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The note option is mentioned efficiently.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the primary action and the optional note. However, without annotations or an output schema, the lack of information about return values, reversibility, and side effects leaves some uncertainty for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema describes feedback_id as coming from list_feedback, and the description explains the note parameter as 'a note describing the change.' Together, both parameters receive meaningful semantic guidance despite the schema-only coverage being 50%.

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 action ('mark as addressed') and the resource ('feedback item'), and the context 'after fixing the page' provides situational framing. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like list_feedback, but the mutation intent is unmistakable.

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 a clear condition for use ('after fixing the page'), which is a meaningful usage guideline. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but for this simple mutation the context is sufficient.

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