workflow_resolve_notification

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical side-effect: retrying after an incorrect inspection can duplicate delivery. This is a meaningful and non-obvious behavioral warning, though it does not detail acknowledged semantics or other state changes.

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 tightly written sentences, with the core purpose in the first sentence and a critical warning in the second. There is no filler, and the most important safety information is front-loaded.

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 covers key preconditions and the main risk, but leaves the 'acknowledged' action semantics, expected 'notes' content, and return behavior unstated. Given four required parameters and no annotations or output schema, an agent would still need to infer some behavior.

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 for parameter meaning. It partially clarifies the 'retry' action by warning about duplicate delivery, but gives no semantic guidance for 'acknowledged', 'taskId', 'round', or 'notes'. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently construct a valid call.

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 names a specific verb ('resolves'), a specific resource ('UNKNOWN/BLOCKED notification'), and a specific actor ('Original reviewer'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like workflow_review or workflow_dispatch without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives explicit usage context: only for UNKNOWN/BLOCKED notifications, only by the original reviewer, and only after inspecting Codex history. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the preconditions and restrictions are clear enough to guide selection.

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