track_thread

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains that cadence_days controls surfacing after quiet days and lists status values, but it never clarifies create-vs-update (upsert) semantics, reversibility, or what happens to existing fields on update.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then terse per-parameter notes. Slightly telegraphic ('0 = never surfaces on silence') but every line earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves half the parameters and the create/update distinction unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It defines cadence_days range/semantics, status enum values, and wake_date, covering three of six parameters, but leaves lane, name, and note entirely undefined.

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 pair (create/update) and resource (thread), plus a trigger condition distinguishing it from list_threads/touch_thread. It does not explicitly name how it differs from the sibling touch_thread, but a reader can infer it.

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 trigger is stated ('when the user names an ongoing project or open loop'), which is clear usage context. However, no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given, so the agent must infer when touch_thread or list_threads is preferable.

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