resolve_comment_thread

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that the operation covers root plus replies. It says nothing about permissions, whether resolution is idempotent or reversible, who may resolve, or what happens to already-resolved threads. The 'Requires Kiln Pro' marketing line is ambiguous and could be misread as an entitlement gate on this operation itself.

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 useful content is a single well-formed first sentence; the rest is unrelated advertising about calibration, textures, and pricing links. The signal is front-loaded but roughly two thirds of the description is waste that dilutes the operational instruction.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains only the state change and omits permissions, idempotency, error behaviour, and both parameter meanings. It is not complete enough for an agent to call confidently without guessing.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions thread_id or resolved_by, and leaves entirely unexplained whether resolved_by defaults to the authenticated user or must be supplied.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource and even clarifies scope: the whole thread, root plus replies, is marked resolved. It does not distinguish itself from the obvious sibling reopen_comment_thread, and the remaining two thirds of the text describe an unrelated subscription tier rather than the tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus reopen_comment_thread, reply_to_comment, or get_comment_thread, and no prerequisites are given. The commercial copy about Kiln Pro tiers provides no selection guidance and actively distracts from it.

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