mdshare

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies permission requirements ('edit or admin permission') and explains the server's limitation ('can't look up the parent document'), which annotations don't cover. Annotations indicate it's destructive and idempotent, and the description doesn't contradict these. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like notifications or audit trails.

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 description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds critical information: the first states the action, and the second explains permission and parameter requirements efficiently, with zero wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers purpose, permissions, and parameter rationale. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given the mutation nature. The annotations help by indicating destructiveness and idempotency.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds some context for the 'key' parameter (explaining why it's required), but doesn't provide additional meaning for 'comment_id' or 'resolved' beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Resolve or unresolve a comment') and resource ('comment'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'post_comment' or 'list_comments'. It precisely defines the verb and object without ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context for when to use it ('Requires edit or admin permission') and explains why the 'key' parameter is needed, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'post_comment' for creating comments). This gives good guidance but lacks sibling differentiation.

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