Continues work of multiple execution threads.

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond them — that the operation resumes thread execution — plus a token-validity precondition, but it does not explain what is disrupted by the destructive mutation or the failure mode for invalid tokens.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the action is front-loaded before the parameter note. The minor cost is that the second sentence spends its space on a parameter naming mismatch rather than a sharper usage rule.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one precondition. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about batch limits, partial-failure behavior, and what the destructive update does to currently running thread state.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'body' and 'workspaceId', which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds a validity constraint ('valid tokens with existing workspace IDs') beyond the schema's 'cannot be null or empty', but it refers to the parameter as 'threadTokens', a name that does not match the schema's 'body', which introduces mild confusion rather than clarity.

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 and resource ('update the specified execution threads, allowing them to continue working'), and the plural scope plus the bulk_ name separates it from the single-thread continue_use_thread sibling. The phrasing 'update ... allowing them to continue' is slightly indirect about the real action (resuming threads), but still 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 gives a precondition — tokens must be valid and belong to existing workspace IDs — which implies the contexts in which the tool will succeed. It never says when to prefer this over continue_use_thread or bulk_stop_thread, and there is no explicit exclusion or alternative routing.

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