gitlab_mr_resolve

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully explains the CE 11.3 no-approve-API context and the reply-first convention, but says nothing about permissions required, idempotency of resolving an already-resolved thread, or what the operation returns.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the rationale and the sequencing caveat. Nothing is padded, though the CE 11.3 version detail is niche context that could be trimmed for some audiences.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers what the tool does, why it exists, and the reply-first workflow. The main remaining gap is behavioral detail (permissions, idempotency) for a mutation tool with thin annotations.

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 50%: iid and project are well documented in the schema, while resolved and discussion_id have no schema description. The description's 'resolve or unresolve' phrasing hints at the purpose of the `resolved` boolean but never explicitly maps it or explains discussion_id, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 pair (resolve/unresolve) and resource (a discussion thread), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not explicitly name which sibling it contrasts with (e.g. gitlab_mr_discussions), though the 'reply to the thread first' line implicitly points at the reply tool.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use rationale ('this is how review state is recorded on CE 11.3, which has no approve API') plus an actionable sequencing rule (reply first if an explanation is needed). There is no explicit when-not or named alternative tool, which keeps it short of a 5.

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