Resolve review comment

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency guarantees, expectedVersion concurrency checks, or side effects. It merely states the action without elaboration on what happens when marking already-resolved comments or if it requires permissions.

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?

The one-sentence description is brief but dangerously under-specified for a complex tool. It omits any structural details, making it under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or how required parameters interact, so the agent cannot safely invoke it.

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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. It does reference the 'resolved' state but doesn't map to required parameters like commentId, expectedVersion, or idempotencyKey, leaving the agent without essential semantics for the 11 parameters.

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 a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('review comment') with a clear scope ('resolved or unresolved'). It distinguishes this from sibling comment tools like add/reply by indicating it toggles resolution state.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when resolution should be toggled, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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