Update or restore a conversation thread

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

The description discloses the core behavior: updating status and archiving/restoring threads, including specific boolean semantics. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but does not mention potential side effects, permissions, reversibility beyond 'restore', or error conditions. It adds minimal context beyond what the title and schema already convey.

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 two sentences long, directly front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses precise language. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary elaboration. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and full schema coverage. The description adequately explains the main actions and boolean usage. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description does not cover return values or error conditions, and it does not distinguish from the ArchiveConversationThread sibling. For a simple update tool, this is mostly complete but could be improved with additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, with descriptions for each. The tool description repeats the boolean semantics in the schema ('Set to true to archive or false to restore') but adds no new meaning about parameter interactions or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool updates a single conversation thread's status (OPEN/CLOSED) or archives/restores it. It identifies a specific verb (update) and resource (single conversation thread), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ArchiveConversationThread, which likely overlaps with the archive/restore functionality.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to change a thread's status or archive/restore it) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of using ArchiveConversationThread for archive-only operations or any context about choosing this tool over others. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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