Settle an effect whose outcome was unknown

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

Goes beyond annotations by explaining that this mutates the effect's disposition, that it must be based on verified facts, and that incorrect resolution has serious consequences. It does not detail reversibility, idempotency, or return behavior, but annotations are sparse and the description carries the safety-critical context well.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing, with the critical precondition front-loaded. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation behavior.

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?

Covers the essential correctness context: when to call, what outcomes mean, how to provide evidence, and the danger of guessing. It leaves out return/error behavior and the purpose of the `result` field, but for a settlement action the provided context is largely sufficient for an agent to call it 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?

Clarifies the outcome enum by mapping each value to a real-world state ('succeeded' if the action occurred, 'failed' if not, 'cancelled' to abandon), and explains evidence as verification stored in the audit trail. However, schema description coverage is only 25% and the description does not explain the `effect_id` parameter or the nested `result` object, so it only partially compensates for low schema coverage.

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 ('resolve') and resource ('effect'), and defines the exact purpose: settling an effect whose outcome was left indeterminate. The description makes the tool's domain distinct from siblings like check, report, or begin by focusing on recording the verified real outcome.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition: use ONLY after checking the third-party system and now knowing what happened. It also gives a firm when-not: never guess, because incorrect resolution causes duplicate or lost actions. This is clear usage guidance even though sibling tools are not named.

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