docs_resolve_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the core action (resolve/close) but does not explain whether resolution is reversible, whether notifications are sent, whether the comment remains visible, or what happens if the comment is already resolved. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence. The verb and object lead, and the optional reply is appended without filler. Every clause earns its place, making it concise and easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents parameters, and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, with no annotations and no guidance on when to use this tool against sibling comment tools, the description lacks the contextual guardrails an agent needs for a mutating operation. It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'optionally with a final reply' restates the reply parameter's docstring. No additional semantics about ID formats or the source of comment_id are provided beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Resolve (close)') and a clear resource ('a comment on a Google Doc'), making the action immediately distinguishable from siblings like docs_reply_to_comment and docs_delete_comment. It also notes the optional final reply, so an agent can tell that this tool resolves rather than merely replies or deletes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is given. The description does not mention that this is the right tool for closing a comment versus replying or deleting, nor does it advise using docs_reply_to_comment when no resolution is desired. The only implicit hint is 'optionally with a final reply,' but no exclusions or comparison to alternatives are provided.

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