resolve_comment_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutation behavior, the ability to reopen with resolved=false, the audit side effects ('Records resolved_by / resolved_at'), and the mandatory identity field. It does not detail edge cases like whether reopening clears resolved_by/resolved_at, but it is still reasonably transparent for a reversible flag toggle.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the mandatory parameter note and the policy guidance. 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 state-toggle tool, the description provides the essential context: what it does, how to reopen, the required identity parameter, and when it should be used. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. Minor gaps remain around exact behavior on reopen and possible errors, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains 'by' (identity such as 'agent' or a human name) and 'resolved' (false reopens the comment), but leaves 'project_path' and 'comment_id' to be inferred from their names alone. This is partial but not full parameter clarification.

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 and resource: 'Mark a comment resolved (or reopen with resolved=false)'. This is specific and not a tautology of the tool name. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_comment_tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 usage context: 'Prefer resolving after action items are done' and instructs that 'by' must always be passed as an identity. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or which sibling handles alternative comment updates, so it is not a full 5.

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