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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds real context by confirming the resolution does not delete text or alter document access, which is exactly the reassurance an agent needs before mutating review state. It omits what happens on an already-resolved comment (annotations say idempotentHint=false) and any permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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, the action stated first and the safety caveat second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 state-change tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description covers the essentials. The remaining gap is how to source the comment_id and what the call yields, which is minor but not zero for an agent invoking it cold.

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 two parameters carry only names and regex patterns. The parameter names document_id and comment_id are largely self-explanatory, but the description offers no hint about where to obtain a comment_id (e.g., from shareout_list_comments) or the expected scope of the document reference.

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 — 'Mark one review comment resolved' — which is unambiguous and implicitly contrasts with siblings like shareout_reopen_comment and shareout_read_comment. It stops short of naming a sibling to disambiguate explicitly, so a 4 rather than 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 usage is implied by the verb (resolve a comment after a review) but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite that the comment must currently be open, and no named alternative such as shareout_reopen_comment for undoing it. The 'Does not delete text' clause is scope clarification, not routing guidance.

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