resolve_mr_discussion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a behavioral consequence (resolved discussions are typically collapsed in the GitFlic UI), which is useful. However, it does not mention idempotency, permissions, or error cases.

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 with no redundancy: the first states the action, the second provides the UI consequence and an alternative tool. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple with 4 well-documented parameters. Description covers action, consequence, and complementary tool. It does not mention return value, but for a state-changing operation this is often implicit and not a critical 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 description coverage is 100%, with each property clearly defined (e.g., 'Discussion UUID to resolve'). The description adds no additional parameter nuance beyond 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Mark as resolved' with clear resource 'discussion thread'. It explains the effect ('indicating the topic has been addressed') and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_mr_discussion or reply_mr_discussion.

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?

Provides explicit alternative 'Use list_mr_discussions to check which discussions are still open.' This gives clear context for pre-checking but does not detail when to prefer other discussion mutations like delete.

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