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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the change is reversible (only implied by 'reopen'), whether resolving notifies the comment author or reviewers, whether the comment is hidden versus merely flagged, or what permissions are required for a mutation.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage hint trailing. No filler, though the second sentence is thin enough that it could have carried more specificity without becoming bloated.

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 mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the basics but leaves success/return behavior and side effects unstated. Adequate but with clear gaps given the absence of structured behavioral hints.

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%: comment_id is documented, status is an enum with self-explanatory values. The description's value-add is mapping 'reopen' to the 'open' enum value, which helps an agent pick the right string, but it adds no other parameter detail.

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 concrete verb pair (resolve/reopen) applied to a specific resource (website comment), which is more informative than the name alone since 'set_status' does not reveal the two available transitions. It implicitly separates this from the sibling set_comment_status by scoping to website comments, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

"Use this to close out issues as you ship fixes" gives an implied workflow context for the resolve direction, but says nothing about when to reopen, when to prefer set_comment_status or reply_to_comment, or any prerequisites. Usage is suggested rather than specified.

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