resolve_comment_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'resolves' implies a state change (likely marking as closed/resolved), it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive to comment content, or what happens to the thread after resolution. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'resolves' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects, or what happens to associated replies. The context signals indicate this is a simple tool, but the description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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% with the single parameter 'threadId' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage when schema does 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?

The description clearly states the action ('resolves') and the target ('a comment and any associated replies'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'update_api_comment' or 'delete_api_comment' that might also handle comment resolution in different ways.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple comment-related tools in the sibling list (create_api_comment, delete_api_comment, update_api_comment, get_api_comments), the description offers no context about when resolution is appropriate versus deletion, updating, or other operations.

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