Resolve a review comment

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

The annotation only supplies readOnlyHint=false, which the description corroborates by framing this as a state-changing resolution. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that the addressing commit is recorded, but says nothing about idempotency (what happens if already resolved), reversibility, or whether 'note' is posted to the reviewer.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and its effect; no filler, no redundancy. Every clause 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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, so the remaining burden is behavioral. For a mutation tool with essentially no annotation coverage beyond readOnlyHint, the description stops short of covering failure modes or post-resolution behavior.

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%, so 'id', 'sha', and 'note' are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the sha's role ('the commit that addressed it'), adding marginal value beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Mark resolved') and resource ('a comment'), plus the side effect of recording the addressing commit. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the siblings (list_comments, wait_for_comments, get_comment_context, start_solo) are clearly different operations, so the risk of confusion is low.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. required permissions or whether the comment must be open), and no exclusions. The agent must infer context entirely from the tool name.

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