Resolve a company-reported bug

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral details: the exact state changes (setting board bug to Done, flipping report entry to resolved). This goes beyond annotations, though it omits potential side effects or reversibility.

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 with a clear verb ('resolve'), front-loading the action and outcome. No extraneous words; every part contributes to purpose.

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 description lacks information about return values (no output schema) and prerequisites (e.g., whether the bug must be in a specific state). Given the complexity of the task (two side effects), more context would help ensure correct usage.

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 description coverage is 67% (ticket and company have descriptions, project does not). The tool description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify the project field or provide format examples. The description fails to compensate for the missing 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?

The description clearly states the action (mark a bug resolved) and the specific changes: sets board bug to Done and flips company report entry. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'log_bug' (logging new bugs) and 'report_company_bug' (reporting, not resolving).

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 implies usage for resolving company-reported bugs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'log_bug' or 'company_priority_tickets'). No exclusion criteria are provided.

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