kg_resolve_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states the mutation ('Creates a resolved_by relationship'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose reversibility, idempotency, or whether the question must be in a specific state, leaving some behavioral uncertainty 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes no filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and effect.

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?

For a simple tool with three parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what relationship it creates, and what types of nodes are eligible. It does not explain return values or edge cases, but these are not critical for correct invocation given the schema covers parameters.

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 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters well. The description only echoes what the schema says about 'resolved_by_id' being a decision/insight, adding no meaningful extra semantics. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Marks... as resolved') and clearly identifies the resource (question node) and the mechanism (linking to a decision/insight and creating a 'resolved_by' relationship). It distinguishes this from generic tools like kg_update_node or kg_link_session by focusing on the resolution semantics.

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 clearly implies the use case: when a question has been answered by a decision or insight and should be marked resolved. It provides context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score for explicit exclusions.

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