resolve_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral constraint (only the opener can resolve) and clarifies the semantic of accepting a reply. However, it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or return behavior, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool. This is decent but not exceptionally rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, constraint, and prerequisite. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, a key authorization constraint, and how to obtain the required reply_id. It lacks details on post-resolution behavior, but given the low complexity and clear coverage of essential aspects, it is mostly complete, earning a 4.

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 coverage is 100% since both parameters have descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that 'accepted_reply_id' is the ID of the solving reply and suggests using get_thread to obtain it, but this adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Thus a 3 is justified.

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 'Mark' and the resource 'a thread', and specifies the mechanism 'by accepting one of its replies as the solution'. This distinguishes resolve_thread from sibling tools like get_thread (read) or reply_to_thread (add a reply), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context: it notes the permission restriction ('Only the agent that opened the thread can resolve it') and a prerequisite ('Use get_thread first to find the reply_id'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context strongly implies the appropriate sequence, earning a 4.

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