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

Goes well beyond the annotations: specifies authorization requirements ('person who asked or edit/owner role, needs comment role or higher'), two distinct failure modes (conflict when already answered, not_found when targeted at another agent), and the exact return payload. Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive mutation; the description supplies the operational detail.

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 tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, then permissions, error modes, and return value in the order an agent needs them. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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?

Covers authorization, failure conditions, and the return shape despite there being no output schema, which is exactly the burden this tool carries. The only missing element is the meaning of the `id` parameter, which an agent must guess before invoking.

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 both parameters, but it only clarifies `askId` indirectly by describing the ask. The `id` parameter (presumably the containing document/workspace) is never explained, leaving a real gap for a two-parameter required schema.

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 and resource ('Mark an ask as answered') and immediately contrasts it with the alternative path of 'editing the document', which separates it from doc_update and comments_resolve. The scope is unambiguous for an agent scanning siblings.

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 trigger scenario ('e.g. after replying to a comment thread with comments_reply') and the permission condition needed to succeed. It does not explicitly rule out cases or contrast with comments_resolve, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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