bsky_set_threadgate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication is required, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it doesn't describe other important aspects: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by '設定します' but not explicit), rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool that likely modifies post permissions, this is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The authentication note is relevant but could be more integrated. There's no wasted text, though it might be overly brief given the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and a 0% schema coverage for 4 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and authentication need but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and usage context. This is adequate as a minimum but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what post_uri is, how allow_mentions/allow_following work, or what acting_handle does). With 4 parameters and 0% coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings unclear.

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 tool's purpose: '投稿に対する返信制限を設定します' (sets reply restrictions for posts). It specifies the verb '設定します' (sets) and the resource '返信制限' (reply restrictions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bsky_post or bsky_reply, which are related but distinct operations.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions authentication is required ('要認証'), but offers no explicit when-to-use criteria, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to use this vs. other posting or moderation tools like bsky_post or bsky_block, leaving usage context largely implied.

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