resolve_review_thread

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

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. Only states it marks a thread as resolved, omitting details on permissions, idempotency, side effects (e.g., whether already-resolved threads error or succeed silently), or response format. Insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

Two sentences plus an Args line, zero redundant text. Every element earns its place, front-loading the core action and then providing necessary parameter context.

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?

Adequate for a one-parameter mutation tool with output schema present. Covers purpose and parameter source but lacks behavioral edge cases (errors, idempotency). Falls short of full completeness for safe autonomous invocation.

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 0%, but description adds 'GitHub GraphQL node ID of the review thread' to the thread_id parameter, clarifying its type and source beyond the bare schema definition. Single parameter is well-documented.

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?

Description uses specific verb+resource: 'Mark a pull request review thread as resolved.' Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_unresolved_review_threads (which retrieves threads) and the PR listing tools.

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?

Explicitly directs users to list_unresolved_review_threads for obtaining thread_id values, establishing a clear prerequisite and companion tool use. Does not state when not to use, but context is sufficient.

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