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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds the re-open semantics and a scoping etiquette rule, but says nothing about what resolving actually does (notifications, thread visibility, failure mode when threadId is unknown).

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, the primary operation is front-loaded, and the re-open escape hatch follows immediately. No filler or hedging to strip.

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 idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition is adequate but thin – it omits the return value and what state change the caller should expect. Annotations and the trivial schema carry most of the load, so the remaining gap is real but modest.

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 50% – `resolved` is documented in schema and the description only restates it, while `threadId` (a uuid) carries no description in either place. The description implies threadId identifies an existing thread but adds no lookup or error semantics, so it neither compensates for the gap nor ignores it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve a comment thread') and covers the inverse operation explicitly ('pass resolved: false to re-open it'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_comment_thread, reply_to_comment_thread, and list_comment_threads.

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?

Gives a concrete selection rule: 'Resolve only threads the user asked about or that you addressed' – that is a real when-to-use constraint, not just restatement. It falls short of 5 because it never names the sibling alternatives (reply_to_comment_thread, get_comment_thread) for the cases where resolving is wrong.

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