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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real facts: the operation is bidirectional (toggle) and only the round's student may perform it, including a ticket reference. It does not say what happens on unauthorized attempts, whether the toggle is idempotent, or how errors surface.

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 with the purpose front-loaded and the permission constraint second — appropriately sized. The '#4818 FR2' tracker reference is minor internal noise that adds nothing for the calling agent.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the auth constraint is covered. However, for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the parameter layer entirely unaddressed.

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 explain both parameters and largely does not. The parenthetical '(or un-resolve)' hints that a boolean exists but never maps to 'resolved', never mentions its default of true, and says nothing about 'comment_id'.

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 pair ('Resolve (or un-resolve)') and resource ('a review comment'), making the state-toggle distinct from reply_comment and get_comment_thread. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'resolve (or un-resolve)' phrasing implies when the tool applies, but no alternatives are named — an agent gets no explicit routing between this, reply_comment, and send_feedback. The only stated constraint is authorization, not use-case selection.

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