resolve_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discharges it thoroughly: it discloses that the tool re-queries after resolving, that a still-open comment is reported as COMMENT_STILL_OPEN and never as success, the exact Drive API mechanism used, and the post-state evidence returned. This prevents the agent from trusting a false-success outcome, which is the critical behavioral risk here.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and organized into clear sections (mechanism, verification behavior, returns, errors). It is moderately long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct value; the API backstory explaining why comments.update fails is the only part that could be trimmed, though it genuinely helps an agent avoid a known bug.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, mechanism, verification, error semantics, and return evidence, and an output schema exists to fill in return structure. Remaining gaps are minor: it does not state whether resolving an already-resolved comment is idempotent, and it does not mention permission requirements or comment ownership preconditions.

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 does so adequately for a trivial 2-parameter case: doc_id and comment_id are self-evident from the stated purpose (resolve a comment on a document), and comment_id is explicitly surfaced again in the return evidence list. Each parameter is not formally documented, but the risk of the agent passing the wrong value is minimal.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (Resolve) and resource (a comment on a document), adding a distinctive behavioral qualifier: and verify the resolution landed. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings such as reply_to_comment (adds a reply) and get_comment_thread (reads state) without needing to open any schema.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: Use this tool when you need to mark a reviewer comment as resolved. It also warns against the wrong mechanism, explaining that comments.update with resolved=true is silently ignored, so the agent will not attempt a doomed workaround. It does not explicitly route between sibling tools for the verification alternative (e.g., get_comment_thread), which keeps this from a 5.

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