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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the schema: the required authorization scope (write:nodes, owner or editor) and the fact that the change is reversible (resolved can be reopened). It does not state idempotency, error behavior for an already-resolved comment, or side effects, leaving meaningful gaps 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the permission note. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 three-parameter state toggle with no output schema, the description covers the action, the reversibility, and the authorization requirement, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., resolving a comment that is already resolved) or the response, but those gaps are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 100%: resolved, comment_id, and project_id each carry their own schema descriptions, including the boolean semantics and where the comment ID comes from. The description only restates the resolved/open duality already documented in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (mark) and resource (review comment) plus the two possible target states (resolved or open again). An agent can distinguish this state-toggle from the read-side sibling list_review_comments and from the generic node/project writers without opening any schema.

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 implies the tool is used to close out or reopen a review comment, but it names no alternative or condition for choosing it (e.g., use list_review_comments to find the ID first, or get_review to inspect the thread). The only guidance given is a permission prerequisite rather than when-to-use routing.

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