Resolve comment

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the concrete side effect: the comment leaves the active document and moves to the Resolved panel. It also explains reversibility asymmetries — the agent can never reopen, but a reviewer can — and that the justification note is appended to the thread and attributed to the agent.

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 action and precondition are front-loaded, and the optional-parameter semantics come next before the workflow detail. The closing sentence on reopening is slightly long and could be tightened, but no sentence is filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the side effect, the later state the agent will observe, and the follow-up discovery path via list_comments. It does not address edge cases such as resolving an already-resolved comment, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond 'optional note explaining the resolution': it explains where the note goes (appended to the thread), who it is attributed to (the agent), what happens if omitted (silent resolve), and why it is recommended (reduces back-and-forth since the reviewer can reopen).

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Mark a comment resolved') and adds a precondition ('once you've actually addressed it') that scopes the action. It implicitly separates itself from delete_comment and reply_to_comment by describing a state transition to the Resolved panel rather than removal or a threaded response.

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 clear usage context: resolve only after addressing the comment, and it names list_comments (status reopened/open) as the follow-up path once a reviewer reopens. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling alternatives like delete_comment or reply_to_comment, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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