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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description adds essential behavioral specifics: the authorization constraint and the side effect that 'reopening clears the recorded resolution attribution'. This expands on the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the core action, permission/side-effect details, and an explicit alternative. No redundancy or filler words.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description fully covers what is needed: purpose, permissions, side effects, and relationship to a sibling tool. Return values are unnecessary to describe given the output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning beyond the schema by mapping 'resolve' and 'reopen' to status transitions and explaining the consequence on resolution attribution. It does not elaborate on documentId or idempotencyKey, which are already well-described in the 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?

The description uses specific verbs 'resolve or reopen' and identifies the resource as an 'existing review thread'. It further clarifies 'without adding a reply' to distinguish it from reply_to_thread, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Use reply_to_thread when discussion is still needed', providing a clear alternative. It also states the permission prerequisite ('Only the artifact owner or original thread creator may change its state') and describes the side effect of reopening, guiding when to use the tool.

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