Resolve a PDF comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the note is 'shown to the user on the comment card,' which is useful. However, it omits whether the action is reversible or if there are side effects (e.g., notifications). For a state-changing tool, more detail would be helpful.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and then provides the necessary parameter context. Every sentence 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?

For a simple mutation tool, the description covers the input semantics and usage workflow. It does not mention the return value (no output schema provided), but that is a minor gap given the action's simplicity. An experienced agent would likely infer a success/error response.

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 100%, and the description adds meaningful context: for 'id,' it specifies 'as returned by check_comments'; for 'note,' it explains its purpose and that it is displayed to the user. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 ('Mark a workspace comment as resolved') and the resource ('workspace comment'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment and reply_to_comment by specifying this is about resolution after making an edit.

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?

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'after you have made the edit it asked for' and references check_comments to obtain the id. It does not explicitly mention when not to use (e.g., if already resolved) or alternatives, but the workflow context is sufficient.

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