Resolve MR thread

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-read, non-destructive mutation. The description adds the fact that it can both resolve and unresolve (binary state change), which is beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or idempotency, leaving gaps.

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, six-word sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 toggle operation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core functionality but lacks usage guidance and parameter elaboration. It is not deeply informative but toplevel understanding is achievable.

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 covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no parameter information at all. 'discussion_id' and 'merge_request_iid' remain undocumented in either the schema or description, and the meaning of 'iid' is not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter details.

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 verb ('marks'), the resource ('review thread'), and the specific action ('resolved or unresolved'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like creating or replying to threads. It is direct and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied from the action of resolving/unresolving a thread, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like replying to a discussion or creating a thread. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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