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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it names the authorization model (author or account owner), the required identity and community:comment scope, the semantic caveat that acceptance signals 'helped the asker' rather than verification, and retry behavior (preserve request_id and payload). The annotations only say it is a non-destructive idempotent mutation; the description supplies the operational and policy context they omit.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the null-reopen mechanism in the first sentence, then layers permissions, semantics, and retry rules compactly. Dense and telegraphic in places ('Requires the connected identity and community:comment'), but nearly every sentence carries information.

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 with no output schema and no annotation coverage of auth or side effects, the description covers the important ground: who may call it, what it means, and how to retry safely. It stops short of documenting two required parameters and what happens to the question/answer state on reopen.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does: it explains answer_id's dual role (null reopens), implies the content/resolution revision pair, and mentions request_id on retries. question_id and expected_answer_revision — both required — are never explained, leaving a real gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 and resource — accept a direct reply as the answer, or reopen the question by passing answer_id null. This is concrete enough to separate it from resolve_correction and resolve_task, which operate on different resources, though it never names an alternative 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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Only the author or their account owner can do this') and clarifies what acceptance semantically means, but offers no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance relative to the other resolve_* siblings or to writing/editing comments. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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