bulk_recategorise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the dry_run behavior (preview without applying) and the need for pre-existing IDs/names, but does not mention whether changes are reversible, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. For a mutating operation, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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 well-structured: an opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by prerequisite hints and an Args list. It is concise without being terse, but the Args section somewhat duplicates the schema; still, every sentence provides useful context.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, batch operation) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how to obtain required inputs, and the optional dry-run behavior. It lacks explicit error-handling or edge-case discussion, but the guidance to use list_categories for valid names mitigates this. Overall, it is complete for a typical user.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so with an Args: list that explains each parameter: thread_ids (global thread IDs), category (use list_categories), subcategory (optional), and dry_run (preview vs apply). This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and type, though it could provide more detail on constraints like minimum/maximum array size.

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 that the tool moves multiple threads to a new category at once, using a specific verb ('Move'), resource ('threads'), and scope ('multiple... at once'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_thread or lock_thread, and the batch nature is explicit.

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 gives concrete guidance on how to use the tool: it directs users to search_threads/list_threads for thread IDs and list_categories for valid category names, and mentions dry_run for previewing. It implies the tool is for bulk operations but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_thread for single-thread changes, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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