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 full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the mutation records resolved_by/resolved_at (an audit-trail side effect) and the identity argument is required rather than optional. It omits anything about permissions, idempotency, or what happens on an already-resolved comment.

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 plus a guidance line, with the action and the inverse behavior front-loaded before any caveats. The hard line breaks mid-sentence are slightly awkward but cost little.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core mutation semantics, identity requirement, and audit side effect are all covered. The gaps are the undocumented project_path parameter and the absence of any failure/permission behavior, which matter more given there are no annotations to fall back on.

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, and it partially does: it explains the semantics of resolved (reopen via false) and constrains by to an identity with concrete examples ('agent' or human name). It says nothing about comment_id or the optional project_path, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (mark a comment resolved) and even names the inverse operation (reopen with resolved=false), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this from update_comment_tool or add_comment_tool without opening a 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?

It states a usage condition ('Prefer resolving after action items are done') and a mandatory calling convention ('Always pass by= identity'), so the agent knows prerequisites. It does not name alternatives such as update_comment_tool or set_comment_action_done_tool, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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