resolve_commentMark a comment thread as resolved in Overleaf after addressing feedback. Provide the thread ID to close the discussion once edits and replies are complete.
Marks a thread as resolved. Use after addressing the comment (e.g. by editing the doc and replying).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| thread_id | Yes | The thread id, e.g. from list_comments. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('marks as resolved') but does not mention potential side effects, whether the action is reversible (though a sibling reopen_comment exists), or any permissions/constraints. This is a gap for a mutation tool.
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, front-loaded with the action, followed by a concise usage guideline. No redundancy or wasted words.
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 with a single parameter and no output schema, and the description covers purpose and usage. However, the lack of behavioral details and annotations means the description is only minimally complete, not fully transparent about consequences.
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 coverage is 100% (thread_id is documented with an example source). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Marks') and resource ('a thread as resolved'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like reply_comment and reopen_comment. It also adds context on when this action is appropriate.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use the tool ('after addressing the comment'), with a concrete example. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for a simple operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.