Resolve ONES Bug

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

Description says 'Resolve...' (a mutation), but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which contradicts the described behavior. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits what 'resolve' entails (e.g., status change) and contradicts annotations. It is insufficient for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 description explains that 'ref' can be a number, task id, or task URL, adding meaning beyond the schema which only defines it as a string. This compensates for 0% schema description 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?

Clearly states it resolves an ONES bug using a reference (number, task id, or URL). Could better distinguish from sibling 'resolve_requirement' which also resolves something.

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?

Advises to prefer *_by_ref tools for normal workflow reads, implying this tool is for bug resolution (likely a write operation). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'get_bug_detail_by_ref' or 'resolve_requirement'.

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