bb_resolve_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds an important behavioral trait: resolving a parent resolves the entire thread. However, it does not mention idempotence, reversibility, permissions, or what happens when a child is resolved directly.

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 with no filler. The core action is stated first, and the most important edge behavior is added in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 simple 4-required-parameter mutation tool, the description conveys the core action and the key thread-resolving behavior. It is minimally adequate but lacks usage guidance, result/return expectations, and any elaboration of the required object identifiers.

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 adds parent-child semantics to commentId via the thread note, but gives no meaning for projectKey, repoSlug, or prId. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description does little beyond the schema.

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 ('Mark') and resource ('a comment as resolved'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like bb_update_comment, bb_delete_comment, and bb_create_pull_request_comment. The 'resolved' action is immediate and unambiguous.

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?

The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating or deleting a comment, nor does it mention preconditions like the comment needing to be open. The parent-thread note is behavioral, not selection guidance.

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