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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states that the operation is idempotent and fires a `comment.resolved` event, which are both meaningful beyond the simple action. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., non-existent thread) or whether notifications are sent, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 compact: the core action is first, followed by idempotency, event, pairing, and use case, all in four short sentences. Every sentence contributes essential context without 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 single-parameter tool with schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, idempotency, event, sibling relationship, and typical usage. The only gap is the lack of explicit return value or error behavior for the normal (non-already-resolved) case, but overall it is highly informative.

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?

The schema description for `comment_id` already provides 100% parameter coverage, including the critical nuance about using the thread root. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'Mark a comment thread resolved', making the action unmistakable. It also clarifies the scope (thread root vs reply) via the schema and distinguishes from the sibling `unresolve_comment` by explicitly naming it as the reverse operation.

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 the intended use case: 'Used by agents to close a feedback thread once they've iterated on the change the reviewer asked for.' It also directs to `unresolve_comment` for the reverse, making the choice between the two clear. No ambiguity remains about when to invoke this tool.

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