set_comment_action_done_tool

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by naming the recorded audit fields (completed_by/completed_at), but it omits permissions required, whether unchecking clears those fields, and idempotency behavior for a state-toggling write.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the agent-specific convention. No filler, though the second sentence wraps mid-line without a clear structural need for the break.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a 5-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves meaningful gaps: permissions, reversibility of unchecking, and the non-'by' parameters.

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 usefully clarifies the semantics of the 'by' parameter (pass 'agent' or a stable label) and implies the done/uncheck toggle, but leaves action_id, comment_id, and project_path entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb pair (check/uncheck) and a specific resource (comment action item), plus the side effect of recording completed_by/completed_at. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like add_comment_action_tool or resolve_comment_tool, but the 'action item done' framing is clear enough to separate it from comment resolution.

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?

Only usage hint is 'when finishing work', which is a soft context cue tied to the 'by' parameter rather than guidance on when to pick this over resolve_comment_tool or update_comment_tool. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is given.

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