resolve_mr_discussion

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description explicitly notes the dry_run behavior and the need for user confirmation. This adds useful context beyond the annotations. The description does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple toggle tool, this is sufficient.

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, using two short sentences to convey purpose and key behavioral insight. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. No extraneous content.

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 simple toggle tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description covers the core action and dry-run behavior. While it could mention that discussion_id comes from another tool, that information is already in the schema. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The tool description adds only a brief note about dry_run default, which is already in the schema. Therefore, the description provides minimal additional semantic value over the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('mark an MR discussion as resolved or unresolved') and the resource ('MR discussion'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_mr_discussion' and 'update_mr_note'. It also specifies the ability to toggle resolution state, which adds clarity.

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 mentions the default dry_run=true and implies it should be set to false only after user confirmation, which provides some guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_mr_note' or 'update_mr_note', nor does it provide when-not or prerequisite conditions.

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