Resolve or reopen a threaded Office comment by ID to close addressed feedback or restore it for follow-up in live documents.
Resolve or reopen a threaded comment. Use the comment id from read_comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resolved | Yes | True to resolve, false to reopen. | |
| commentId | Yes | Comment id from read_comments. | |
| workbookId | No | Target workbook ID from list_workbooks. Optional when only one workbook is connected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the state change (resolve vs. reopen) driven by the resolved flag. However, it omits whether resolving notifies participants, what happens to replies on reopen, permission requirements, or error behavior, all of which matter for a mutation on collaboration data.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the input prerequisite second; no filler whatsoever. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.
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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and where the id comes from but leaves the agent without any sense of return value, side effects, or failure modes. It is minimal but not inadequate given the fully documented schema.
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%, and the schema already spells out that resolved=true resolves while false reopens, and that workbookId is optional when a single workbook is connected. The description adds nothing beyond reiterating the comment id source, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb pair ('resolve or reopen') acting on a specific resource ('threaded comment'), so an agent immediately knows it flips a comment's resolved state. It doesn't explicitly name contrasting siblings (e.g., reply_to_comment, add_comment), but the verb is distinct enough from the sibling set that misselection is unlikely.
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?
It gives a concrete prerequisite by pointing at read_comments as the source of the comment id, which tells the agent when this tool is applicable and how to obtain the required input. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as non-threaded comments, which would make it a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.