endorse_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutating action ('Endorse a thread with an instructor badge'), which at least warns the agent. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, permissions (e.g., instructor-only), reversibility, or behavior when the thread is already endorsed. It adds some context but lacks depth for a no-annotation tool.

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 two short sentences plus an Args line. It is immediately clear what the tool does, and the parameter explanation is compact. No extraneous words or 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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description covers the core purpose and parameter well. It lacks usage alternatives and side-effect details, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. It could be improved by mentioning reversibility or related actions, but it's not fully inadequate.

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 schema only describes thread_id as an integer, but the description adds meaningful context: it's a global thread ID and can be obtained from list_threads or search_threads. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, giving the agent actionable guidance.

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 the verb 'Endorse' and the thread resource, and explains the specific purpose: adding an instructor badge to signal good content or correctness. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the badge context, which differs from unendorse_thread, accept_answer, and pin_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?

The purpose ('to signal it contains good content or a correct answer') implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations to avoid. There's no reference to siblings like accept_answer or unendorse_thread, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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