Advance Thread Phase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state whether advancing is reversible, what preconditions must hold (thread exists, phase transition legal), what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single short phrase is not wasteful in length, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded actionable content beyond the title restated.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is completely inadequate to let an agent invoke it correctly.

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% across three parameters (thread_id, project_id, target_phase_id), and the description explains none of them. In particular, the semantics of target_phase_id and the optional project_id are entirely undocumented.

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 '推进 Meta 线程阶段' merely restates the tool name (advance_thread_phase) in Chinese without adding any distinguishing detail. It does not clarify what 'Meta thread' or 'advancing' a phase entails, nor differentiate it from siblings like check_thread_health, register_thread, or link_beat_to_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With dozens of thread-related siblings (check_thread_health, register_thread, check_unresolved_threads), the agent has no way to choose correctly.

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