resolve_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool modifies the document by setting an XML attribute, which implies a write operation, but does not discuss side effects (e.g., whether the change is reversible, triggers notifications, or requires specific permissions). This is minimal 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 short and to the point, with a brief explanation and an explicit Args list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first. Overall, it is efficiently structured for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., comment must exist), expected outcome (e.g., success indicator), or error conditions. The output schema might cover return values, but the description itself leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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%, meaning the description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema. The 'Args' section simply mentions 'comment_id: ID of the comment to resolve', which adds minimal meaning compared to the schema's 'type: integer' and 'title: Comment Id'. The description fails to provide additional context like format, constraints, or hints.

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 'Mark a comment as resolved' and mentions setting w15:done='1' in commentsExtended.xml, which is a specific action on a distinct resource. Among sibling tools like add_comment, delete_comment, reply_to_comment, this tool unambiguously stands out as the one for resolving comments.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context (e.g., comment must exist and be unresolved) or suggest when another tool like update_comment might be more appropriate. The description only states the action without any usage conditions.

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