Update thread

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds specific actions but not deeper behavioral context like side effects, permissions, or default behavior when fields are omitted.

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 sentence that lists all possible actions efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no extraneous information.

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, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should provide more detail on parameter behavior and default values. It lacks explanation of what happens when optional fields are omitted (implied unchanged) and does not cover the 'guild' parameter.

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 only 29% (low). The description fails to add meaning beyond listing actions; it does not detail parameter constraints (e.g., name length, enum values for auto_archive_minutes) or provide guidance on usage of individual parameters.

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 (Rename, archive, unarchive, lock, unlock, change) and the resource (thread). It lists specific actions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_thread or delete_thread.

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 the tool is for updating thread attributes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like update_channel. No mention of when not to use or prerequisites.

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