resolve_merge_request_thread

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the operation changes review state, requires permission to resolve discussions, and returns either the updated discussion or missing-thread/permission errors. This is exactly the safety and outcome context an agent needs for a state-changing call.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, alternative routing, and behavioral/error expectations. The key usage guidance is front-loaded, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation 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 4-parameter, no-output-schema tool with minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, permission requirements, state change, and error cases. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 fully describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters; it only characterizes the operation overall. No additional parameter-specific guidance is needed, but none is provided.

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 specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('thread on a merge request'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from update_merge_request_discussion_note. It also adds 'review thread' to clarify exactly what kind of thread, which prevents confusion with note-level operations.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('mark an existing merge request review thread resolved') and names the alternative with the condition for using it ('use update_merge_request_discussion_note when the note text itself must change'). This gives the agent clear selection criteria without further inference.

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