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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent hints, but the description adds specific behavioral context beyond these: reopening clears recorded resolution attribution, and only certain users may change state. This provides valuable side-effect and permission details not present in the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the action. Every clause earns its place: purpose, permission, side effect, and alternative. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% param coverage), existing output schema, and annotations indicating idempotency/destructive behavior, the description covers the remaining essential context: what it does, permissions, side effects, and when to use an alternative. It is sufficiently complete 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?

All four parameters have descriptive schema entries (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description supplements by explaining a status-specific side effect (reopening clears resolution attribution), which adds meaning to the status parameter beyond the schema's enum description.

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 specific verbs and a resource: 'Resolve or reopen an existing review thread without adding a reply.' This clearly indicates the tool's function and explicitly distinguishes it from sibling reply_to_thread by stating it does not add a reply.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use reply_to_thread when discussion is still needed.' It also states who is allowed to change state (artifact owner or original creator), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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