resolve_merge_request_thread

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

The description 'resolve a thread' is consistent with the 'openWorldHint' annotation. It does not add behavioral details beyond the annotation, such as side effects or permissions, but it does not contradict anything. The annotation already hints at unknown side effects, so the description is minimally adequate.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficient but slightly lacking in depth, preventing a perfect score.

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 action with four parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, the 'openWorldHint' annotation suggests potential side effects that are not elaborated, leaving some context missing.

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 schema already explains each parameter (e.g., 'resolved: Whether to resolve the thread'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'thread on a merge request', making the tool's purpose straightforward. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'create_merge_request_thread' or 'delete_merge_request_discussion_note', so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., why resolve a thread instead of all threads, or when to toggle vs create/delete). No exclusions or context are mentioned.

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