Update thread

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by enumerating what is updated (rename, archive status, lock status, slowmode, auto-archive window), which gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior without needing to infer from schema. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements, so it falls short of 5.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that lists all update types in a structured way. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main capabilities but omits any mention of return values, prerequisites, or edge cases (e.g., whether locking affects archiving). The schema covers identifiers, and the description is sufficient for a moderate-complexity tool, but a note on when to use this versus thread-related siblings would have improved completeness.

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 low at 29%, with only guild and thread having descriptions. The description compensates well by paraphrasing the remaining parameters: 'rename' maps to name, 'archive/unarchive' to archived, 'lock/unlock' to locked, 'slowmode' to slowmode_seconds, and 'auto-archive window' to auto_archive_minutes. This adds meaning beyond the sparse schema, though it does not explicitly mention guild or thread.

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 'Rename' and enumerates concrete actions (archive/unarchive, lock/unlock, slowmode, auto-archive) on the 'thread' resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_forum_post or update_channel by focusing on thread-specific settings.

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 implies usage for modifying thread properties but provides no explicit context on when to choose this over alternatives like update_forum_post or when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so guidance is only implicit.

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