bb_pr_resolve_thread

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description is accurate but adds little behavioral detail beyond the annotations, such as permission requirements, undo semantics, or side effects.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It clearly communicates the tool's purpose without wasting tokens.

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 write operation with complete parameter documentation, an output schema, and annotations, the description is sufficient. An agent can invoke this tool correctly based on the description and structured data alone.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add any parameter-level detail, but it also does not need to since the schema covers the meanings of pr_id, repo_slug, workspace, and comment_id.

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 states a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('pull request comment thread') with a clear target state ('resolved'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like bb_pr_list_comments or bb_pr_comment because the resolution action is explicitly named.

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: use this tool when a pull request comment thread should be marked resolved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the action is distinct enough among siblings that an agent can select it correctly.

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