resolve_comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the tool will interrupt for user confirmation in the MCP client before writing, and the result may contain collaborator-authored content that must be treated as data. It stops short of describing failure modes or reversibility, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the confirmation behavior, then the untrusted-content warning. Three sentences, each carrying distinct information, though the security boilerplate is somewhat generic and lengthy relative to the tool's simplicity.

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 two-parameter mutation with a full annotation set, the description covers what happens (resolution), the confirmation gate, and the trust model for returned content. Only edge cases (already-resolved threads, invalid thread_id) are left implicit, which the idempotentHint partly mitigates.

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% with both parameters documented, including that thread_id comes from list_comments. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a review comment thread as resolved.' This is unambiguously distinguishable from siblings like add_comment, reply_to_comment, and list_comments without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the resolved-thread concept, and the description notes a confirmation prompt will appear. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., reply_to_comment for discussion) or what happens if the thread is already resolved or missing.

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