set_comment_action_done_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the side effect of recording completed_by/completed_at and the toggling behavior (check/uncheck). However, it does not clarify whether unchecking clears those fields, whether the operation is idempotent, or any permission requirements.

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 sentences with minimal waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance is separated into a second sentence. It could be slightly more structured (listing parameters), but it is concise and readable.

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 tool with 5 parameters and zero schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of most parameters and does not mention return values (though an output schema exists). The guidance on 'by' is helpful but insufficient to allow correct invocation without additional context.

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 explain all parameters. It only elaborates on 'by', leaving project_path, comment_id, action_id, and done (which controls the check/uncheck) without any semantic explanation. The default of done=true is not mentioned, and the relationship to 'check' vs 'uncheck' is implicit.

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 'Check or uncheck' and the resource 'comment action item', and specifies that it records completed_by/completed_at. This distinguishes it from sibling comment tools (add_comment_action, resolve_comment) by focusing on the action item's done state.

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 a specific instruction about the 'by' parameter ('should pass by="agent"...') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or what distinguishes it from resolve_comment_tool or update_comment_tool.

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