resolve_problem

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

The description adds the prerequisite 'requires WRITE_ENABLED=true' beyond the annotations, which notes that the tool is destructive (destructiveHint=true) and not read-only. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like the irreversibility of the action or side effects, which would be valuable for a destructive 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Resolve a problem with root cause and resolution notes') and includes a critical prerequisite in parentheses. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity (3 required string parameters) and the presence of annotations covering readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention the return value or confirm whether the operation is reversible, which could be useful. Still, overall good completeness.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (sys_id, root_cause, resolution_notes), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'resolve', the resource 'problem', and the required fields (root cause, resolution notes). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'update_problem' or 'get_problem' by indicating a specific action (resolution) and a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true).

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 mentions a prerequisite (WRITE_ENABLED=true), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_problem' or 'close_problem' (if such exists). The context is adequate but not explicit.

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