Resolve a comment thread

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

Annotations already declare this is an idempotent, non-destructive mutation in an open world. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the ownership requirement and the version-scoping behavior ('moves ... to the resolved ones of the version the site serves now'), which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stays consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, though it doesn't spell out why repeated calls are idempotent.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: action, state transition/scope, usage rule, and inverse operation. The core verb and resource are front-loaded, and nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations cover the safety profile for this mutation. The description still supplies the ownership, version-scoping, and inverse-tool context an agent needs to invoke this correctly against its siblings.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented as coming from list_sites and list_comments, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only indirect meaning ('the version the site serves now' tying site to a served version) and gives no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 ('marks ... resolved') and resource ('a comment thread on a site'), plus the actor scope ('as its owner') and the state transition (open → resolved). It explicitly names the sibling it is the inverse of ('reopen_comment undoes it'), so an agent can separate the two without reading either schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use trigger ('Resolve when the person asks'), an explicit when-not ('otherwise leave it for the commenter to confirm the fix'), and names the alternative operation (reopen_comment). All three elements of the top tier are present and unambiguous.

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