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

Annotations say destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the authorization rule (who may resolve), which is exactly the kind of context annotations don't carry. It doesn't mention idempotency or reversibility explicitly, though the resolved:false path implies reversibility.

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: action + toggle first, permission rule second. Nothing wasted, though the permission clause is slightly under-integrated.

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 two-parameter toggle with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers what it does, the reopen path, and who can call it. Return values are covered by the output schema; idempotency behavior is the only minor gap.

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% and the schema already documents both comment_id and resolved (including the default true). The description restates the resolved:false toggle, adding a little semantic framing but nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 (a thread/note), and clarifies the toggle to reopen via resolved:false. Toggling resolve vs. open is distinguishable from sibling delete_comment or add_comment, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them by name.

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?

Conveys the permission model – owner of the presentation or thread starter may do it – which is a real usage constraint. But it doesn't explicitly say when to choose resolve vs. reopen beyond the parameter flip, and names no alternative tools.

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