Resolve or reopen a thread

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: it notes that resolving records who did it, that it never deletes messages (reinforcing non-destructive), and explains the behavior of returned links (guiUrl, webUrl) and token handling. This enriches the behavioral profile without contradicting the annotations.

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 detailed and well-structured with paragraphs, but it is somewhat verbose. The front-loaded purpose is clear, yet the extensive explanation of guiUrl/webUrl and token behavior could be trimmed for brevity while preserving essential usage guidance. It is informative but not concise.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with side effects and link outputs) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers necessary aspects: it explains the mutation's recording behavior, non-destructive nature, and the two link types and when to offer each. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and handle results appropriately.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does for the `resolved` parameter: it explains that `true` marks the point addressed and `false` reopens it. `threadId` is not elaborated, but its purpose is self-evident from the parameter name and the tool's purpose. The description adds semantic value for the key parameter.

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 opens with 'Mark a discussion settled, or reopen one,' which is a specific verb+resource pair that clearly identifies the tool's action. It explicitly states the two possible outcomes (resolve or reopen) and ties them to the `resolved` parameter, making the purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like `update_review_comment` which handles content edits.

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 gives situational context by saying 'Set `resolved` to true once the point has been addressed, false to bring it back,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives like `update_review_comment` or `delete_review_comment`, nor does it state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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