resolve_thread

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool modifies session state and a JSON file, indicating mutation. However, it does not specify behavior for edge cases like already-resolved threads or nonexistent threads, nor prerequisites or permissions.

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, front-loads the main action, and contains no superfluous words or redundancy. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, identification methods, and side effects. It lacks information on conflict resolution when both thread_id and text_match are provided, and does not describe return values or error states, but is adequate for basic use.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the intended use of thread_id ('for exact match') and text_match ('for fuzzy matching, fallback if no thread_id'), which goes beyond the schema descriptions. The resolution_note parameter is already well-described in the schema.

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 action ('Mark an open thread as resolved') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_thread and list_threads. It specifies two methods for identifying the thread (by ID or fuzzy match).

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 explicit guidance on when to use thread_id versus text_match, but does not include explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. The context is clear enough for basic usage.

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