zentao_resolve_bug

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral specifics beyond annotations: the resolution is set to 'fixed' and the bug is automatically reassigned to its creator. It also reinforces the confirmation gating, but does not elaborate on destructive side effects.

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 short sentences carry all essential information: the write-operation nature, the exact resolution action, the automatic reassignment, and the invocation condition. Nothing is redundant or missing.

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 complete schema coverage, existing annotations, and simple parameter set, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks only clarification of the return shape, but no output schema exists and none is strictly required for invocation.

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 each parameter (id, comment, confirm, resolvedBuild) is already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource state: setting the bug's resolution to 'fixed' and reassigning it to the creator. It also frames itself as a write operation, clearly distinguishing it from the read-oriented sibling tools (get/list/search).

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool: only when the user explicitly requests a status change. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the read siblings are implicitly excluded by the 'write operation' framing.

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