resolve_pull_request_comment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must handle transparency. It explains the 'version' parameter for optimistic locking, implying a state change. However, it does not disclose whether the action is reversible, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements, leaving gaps in behavioral context.

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 description is concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a clearly formatted list of arguments. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure prioritizes essential information upfront.

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 moderate complexity (5 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core action and the critical version parameter. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic operation, though it omits edge cases like version mismatch handling.

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 description fully compensates by listing all 5 required parameters with explanations. Notably, the 'version' parameter is described with its purpose (optimistic locking), adding value beyond the schema's titles. Other descriptions are minimal but adequate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Resolve a comment thread on a pull request.' The verb 'resolve' and the resource 'comment thread' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_pull_request_comment' or 'reopen_pull_request_comment'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'reopen_pull_request_comment'). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the comment needing to be unresolved, or when not to use it.

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