defer_thread

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key effects: dropping into Deferred lane, exclusion from review counts and attention set, and posting reason as a note. Could mention reversibility (e.g., via resume_thread) but still informative.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description covers core behavior, use cases, and effect on UI. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., thread state) but overall complete for a simple defer action.

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 description adds meaning to the 'reason' parameter (optional, posted as note). The thread_id is implied by context but not explicitly described; schema coverage is 0% so description compensates partially.

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 uses a specific verb 'park' and clearly defines the resource (thread) and the resulting state ('deferred lane', excluded from counts). It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_thread or reopen_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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'real work that is not a good time to tackle yet' with examples. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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