Update comment

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the idempotency semantics concretely ('re-resolving an already-resolved comment succeeds instead of erroring'), the scope limit ('Resolve applies to ROOT comments only'), and the authorization boundary ('author-only: it works on comments this key wrote, and is refused on a person's comment'). These are behavioral facts the structured hints could not convey.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by mode-specific guidance using concrete literal examples ({resolved: true} / {body: ...}). Every sentence carries operational information; there is no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. With permissions, exclusivity, scope limits, idempotency, and sibling routing all covered, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds a constraint absent from the schema: body and resolved are mutually exclusive ('pass exactly one of body / resolved'). It also enriches each parameter's meaning with root-only scope and the author-only refusal rule, which is more than the schema's terse descriptions provide.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Edit or resolve an existing comment') and immediately scopes it with the required permission level ('editor+'). It is unmistakably distinct from add_comment and list_comments in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly states the selection rule ('pass exactly one of body / resolved'), explains the intent of each mode, and routes the alternative case to a named sibling ('To answer someone rather than close them out, use add_comment with parent_id'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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