resolve_merge_request_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation name and doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or the fact that the 'resolved' boolean allows toggling between resolved and unresolved states. The schema parameter hints at this, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is clear and front-loaded, though it is also somewhat under-specified, which prevents 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It doesn't state that the thread must already exist, that 'resolved=false' unresolves the thread, or provide any operational context. An agent can assemble a call from the schema but lacks behavioral and contextual guidance needed for confident use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is available, which meets the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 uses a clear verb ('resolve') and a specific resource ('a thread on a merge request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_merge_request_thread and mr_discussions. The only notable gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention that the tool can also unresolve a thread when 'resolved' is false.

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. It does not mention that it should be used for existing threads only, nor does it reference siblings such as create_merge_request_thread or mr_discussions.

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