macro_prepare_thread

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the composite side effects (may register the agent, summarises the thread, fetches inbox context), which is genuinely useful for a macro whose internal steps are otherwise opaque. However it omits permission/token requirements, what registration does if it fires, and any mutation/reversibility context an agent would want before invoking.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that enumerates the three internal steps without filler, well sized for a macro. It could be marginally tightened but nothing is wasted.

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 14-parameter macro with an output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: most parameters are undocumented anywhere, there is no permission/auth context, and no indication of which optional params matter. The output schema covers return values, but the input side is materially under-specified.

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 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only loosely gestures at a few params (registration -> register_if_missing/registration_token, summarising -> thread_id/format, inbox -> inbox_limit/include_inbox_bodies) while leaving model, program, llm_mode, llm_model, task_description, agent_name, and project_key entirely unexplained.

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 composite verb+resource: it 'aligns an agent with an existing thread' by ensuring registration, summarising the thread, and fetching inbox context. This tells an agent exactly what the macro orchestrates, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like summarize_thread, fetch_inbox, or macro_start_session that perform overlapping steps.

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 phrase 'existing thread' implies the precondition (a thread must already exist, as opposed to macro_start_session which presumably creates one), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no guidance on choosing this over summarize_thread + fetch_inbox + register_agent individually, and no prerequisite/ordering notes for a 14-parameter macro.

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