human_required_resolve

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context: the row is updated in place (who/when/note), never deleted, and returns unknown_item if the id doesn't exist. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the mutation semantics and error handling, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to call this tool.

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 compact and front-loaded. It states the purpose, the status values, the mutation behavior, and the error case in three sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the status values, the in-place update behavior, and the error return. It doesn't specify the exact return format on success, but that's not critical for a mutation tool. The description is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'status' parameter's allowed values (resolved | dismissed | acknowledged) and mentions 'note' implicitly ('who/when/note'). However, it doesn't explain 'app_id' or 'item_id' beyond their names, which are fairly self-explanatory. The description adds some value for 'status' but leaves the other parameters to be inferred from their names.

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 tool's purpose: to resolve, dismiss, or acknowledge a human-required queue item. It specifies the verb (resolve/dismiss/acknowledge), the resource (human-required queue item), and the allowed status values. This distinguishes it from siblings like human_required_enqueue and human_required_list, which handle different operations on the same queue.

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 when to use this tool: when a human needs to act on a queue item. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of 'human-required' and the sibling names (enqueue, list) make the usage context clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating that this is for updating the status of an existing item, not for creating or listing items.

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