Resolve PR comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the default value (resolved=true) and the ability to unresolve, which is useful. Beyond that, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects) but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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 description is concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides the default and a useful pointer to list_pr_comments. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and all parameters well-documented in the schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the default behavior, and how to check current state. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites, but for a simple mutation tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the description does not add much beyond the schema. The default value for `resolved` is already in the schema ('True to mark resolved (default), false to unresolve'), so the description's mention of 'Defaults to resolved=true' is redundant. No extra parameter insights are provided.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Mark a PR comment as resolved or unresolved.' This is a specific verb (mark) with a specific resource (PR comment) and state change. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_pr_comment and reply_to_pr_comment, which create or reply to comments.

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 provides clear context for usage: it sets a comment's resolution state with a default. It also directs users to list_pr_comments to check current state, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the clarity of purpose and the reference to list_pr_comments give sufficient guidance.

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