resolve

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions key behaviors (marks as handled, closes flag, records audit trail) but lacks details on reversibility, required permissions, or side effects. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage. It mentions the audit trail effect, which is relevant. However, it omits details about idempotency or response behavior, but these are not critical for such a straightforward action.

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 coverage is at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already detailed (e.g., 'actor' has extensive explanation). Thus, no additional value is provided by the description.

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: marking a collision as sewn/handled after reconciliation, closing its 'Needs you' flag and recording an audit trail. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and effectively distinguishes this from siblings like 'claim' or 'escalate', which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('after you've merged or adapted'), providing clear context for invocation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the usage guidance is straightforward and sufficient for an agent.

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