resolve_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose behavioral details such as reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. The phrase 'mark resolved' implies a state change but lacks further transparency.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates purpose and usage guideline without redundancy.

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 (one simple parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage, but could be slightly improved by mentioning any return value or side effects, though not strictly necessary.

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 only parameter, thread_id, is self-explanatory from its name. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema is simple, the 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 explicitly states the action ('mark a thread resolved') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the scope ('only small/clear-cut items'), making it clear what the tool does and when it is appropriate.

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 the tool ('only small/clear-cut items') and what to leave for the user ('heavy/uncertain changes'), offering clear context for decision-making.

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