Resolve Comment

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact ('without changing its content') but says nothing about persistence, permissions, or what happens to a thread's replies when resolved — modest added value given annotations carry most of the load.

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, action first, alternative second, with zero redundancy. Every clause carries information an agent would not get from the name alone.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple two-parameter state toggle whose safety profile is fully annotated. The only residual gap is a small ambiguity between 'comment thread's resolved state' and the param's 'marks the comment resolved', plus no mention of required permissions.

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 100%: both 'id' (with its source: list_comments/create_comment) and 'resolved' (true resolves, false reopens) are fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'resolved state' merely echoes the param and adds no syntax or edge-case detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('set a comment thread's resolved state') and adds a scope qualifier ('without changing its content') that separates it from update_comment. It does not, however, name update_comment or delete_comment as siblings by comparison in the purpose sentence, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives one explicit when-not rule ('Use delete_comment only when the comment should be removed'), which steers the agent between resolving and deleting. It does not cover the equally plausible alternative update_comment, so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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