resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: marks collision, closes flag, records audit trail. However, it does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or side effects beyond the stated actions. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be beneficial, but the description is adequate.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and outcome. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is well-structured and efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and basic parameters. It lacks details on return value or confirmation, but for a straightforward state-modifying tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters. It mentions the use context but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints.

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 verb ('Mark') and resource ('collision'), and explicitly describes the outcome ('closes its 'Needs you' flag and records the audit trail'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'claim' or 'escalate' by specifying the post-reconciliation use case.

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 says 'Use after you've merged or adapted', providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling list and context imply alternatives (e.g., 'escalate' for unresolved collisions).

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