resolve_mr_discussion

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

The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits. It does not indicate that the tool modifies the discussion's resolved state, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency. No annotations are present to compensate.

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 a single incomplete sentence that fails to convey the tool's purpose effectively. While short, it is not informative and wastes the opportunity to provide crucial details.

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 tool that mutates state and has 5 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the effect of the 'resolved' parameter, the expected input format, or the return value. No output schema exists.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description needs to add little. However, the description adds no additional context or meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 'Discussion 해결(resolved) 처리' is vague and essentially restates the tool name without adding clarity. It does not specify that the tool toggles the resolved status of a discussion, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like reply_mr_discussion or create_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to other discussion-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing to be a participant or having certain permissions.

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