blockers_resolve

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does explain the two allowed actions and the manual-trigger restriction for 'resolve', but it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or the post-condition state of the blocker. This is a moderate disclosure gap for a mutation 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 short, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a compact bulleted argument list. Every sentence contributes semantic value without redundant repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough information to invoke it correctly, including both parameter meanings and the conditional action rules. It stops short of full completeness due to the lack of behavioral side-effect disclosure, but nothing critical to basic invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It defines blocker_id as 'the blocker row ID' and enumerates the exact allowed action values with their applicability conditions, adding meaning well beyond the raw schema fields.

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 cancels or manually resolves a blocker, using specific verbs and a defined resource. It is distinct from the sibling tools like blockers_add, blockers_query, and blockers_check by expressing its resolution/cancellation purpose directly.

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 provides actionable usage constraints: 'cancel' works with any trigger type, while 'resolve' is limited to manual triggers. It does not explicitly contrast with related blockers_* tools, but the action-level guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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