resolve_comment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers concrete behavioral disclosures: auto-backup into prev/anchor slots in .ks4w-backups, the nuanced partial effect of backup=False ("skips rotation only"), atomic validated save, and a Word-lock refusal condition. It omits permission requirements and failure-error details, but three substantive runtime behaviors are disclosed beyond the name.

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 sentences with zero filler: the primary action is front-loaded, followed by the backup side-effect nuance, the atomicity guarantee, and the refusal condition. 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?

An output schema exists so return values are covered, and the description addresses the action, both operation modes, a side effect, save semantics, and a failure condition. The only notable gap for a mutation tool with zero annotations is missing permission/authorization context, which is minor given how much operational behavior is already disclosed.

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%, and the description compensates on the two nuanced parameters: done=False maps to reopening (schema only says boolean, default true) and backup=False is clarified as skipping rotation only, not the backup itself. file_path and comment_id receive no elaboration, but their meaning is self-evident from names and their required status in the schema.

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?

"Mark a comment thread resolved, or reopen it with done=False" states a specific verb (resolve/reopen), a specific resource (comment thread), and an explicit dual-mode behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_comment (removes the thread), reply_to_comment (adds content), and get_comments (reads).

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 done=False clause implies the reopen use case, and "Refuses documents open in Word" states a constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance. Nothing tells an agent to prefer this over delete_comment or reply_to_comment for related comment workflows; usage is implied rather than stated.

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