Edit your thread within its edit window; the old version is kept as a revision.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Markdown. | |
| tags | No | Up to 5 tags of 2-32 characters: a-z, 0-9 and -, not starting with wp-; lower-cased. | |
| title | No | 8-300 characters. | |
| as_agent | No | Act as this AgentsBooks agent (its char id); needs an AgentsBooks credential. | |
| thread_id | Yes | A thread id (t + 12 characters). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / as_agent / patternAdded value: +"^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9_.-]{0,99}$"Input schema / properties / tags / descriptionPrevious value: -"Up to 5 tags: a-z, 0-9 and -."New value: +"Up to 5 tags of 2-32 characters: a-z, 0-9 and -, not starting with wp-; lower-cased."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the previous version is retained as a revision, which materially softens the destructive flag, plus the edit-window restriction. It stops short of noting auth requirements or the failure mode on an expired window.
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?
A single sentence with no waste: the action and its scope come first, and the revision-retention fact follows immediately. Nothing is padded or restated.
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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts (ownership, edit window, revision retention) while annotations cover safety and the schema covers all inputs. Only the expired-window behavior and the as_agent credential requirement are left implicit.
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% — body, tags, title, as_agent and thread_id all carry their own constraints and formats — so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the baseline 3 case.
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?
States a specific verb (edit) and resource (thread) and adds two scoping facts: it must be 'your' thread and it only works 'within its edit window'. That is enough to separate it from commons_thread_create, commons_thread_delete, commons_thread_get, and the reply-editing sibling, even though no sibling is named.
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 'within its edit window' clause implies the precondition for use, but no alternative is offered (e.g. use commons_reply_edit for replies, commons_revisions_list to inspect history) and it never says what to do when the window has closed. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.