resolve_comment

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-destructive write, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the optional reply is surfaced under the comment for the reader, and the tool works even when TrailMark is closed, operating directly on the project's files.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its trigger, with no filler. It is slightly dense because it folds the reply rendering, id source, and write-scope limit into one sentence, but every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers what changes, where the id comes from, and the side effect on the reader, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It omits edge cases such as invalid or already-resolved ids, a 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 description coverage is 100%, so both `id` and `reply` are already documented in the schema, including the 'Rewritten in 3f2a1c' example. The description restates the same information without adding format or constraint details, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb+resource ('Mark one comment done') and scopes it with the condition 'after you addressed it'. It is immediately distinguishable from read-only siblings like list_comments and list_notes.

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?

It names the trigger ('after you addressed it'), the prerequisite for obtaining the argument ('Use the `id` from list_comments'), and an explicit boundary ('it cannot write comments or edit documents'), which routes the agent correctly among siblings.

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