Update pull request thread status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly identifies this as a mutating operation and explicitly requires confirmation, but it does not discuss side effects, reversibility, or response behavior beyond updating the thread status.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'or otherwise update' is somewhat generic, but it is not wasted space; the description is tight for the information it carries.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states purpose, auth prerequisite, and confirmation guard. It does not cover alternatives, status transition semantics, or what the caller should expect after success, leaving clear gaps for an agent to infer.

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 67%, and the schema already describes repositoryId, pullRequestId, project, and confirm. The description's status verbs partially enrich the meaning of the 'status' enum, but it adds no semantics for threadId and repeats, rather than extends, the confirmation requirement.

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?

States a concrete set of actions ('Resolve, reactivate, close, or otherwise update') on a clear resource ('pull request thread'), which distinguishes it from thread-reading and comment-replying siblings. The phrase 'or otherwise update' is broad, but the resource plus status focus remains unambiguous.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Requires write tools and confirm=true'), which tells the agent when the tool is actionable, but it does not say when to prefer this over reply_to_pull_request_thread or get_pull_request_threads. Use is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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