lock_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core effect ('prevent new comments') but does not mention reversibility (though unlock_thread sibling implies it), permissions, or side effects on existing comments. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences plus a compact Args block. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a brief usage note and parameter explanation. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, and parameter origin. It does not explicitly state whether locking is reversible, but the sibling unlock_thread and the non-destructive phrasing ('prevent new comments') provide implicit context. Minor gap for a mutation action.

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 excellently by explaining thread_id as 'The global thread ID' and providing the source ('from list_threads or search_threads'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema label 'Thread Id'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lock a thread to prevent new comments.' This clearly states the action and its direct effect, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pin_thread or delete_thread. The additional use-case context ('after a question is resolved') reinforces the purpose.

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 a clear when-to-use context: 'Useful after a question is resolved or a discussion is concluded.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'for a permanent action use delete_thread'), so it falls short of the full 5 criterion but is above average.

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