unendorse_thread

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It states the action but does not disclose whether instructor permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent (no effect if not endorsed), or any side effects such as reversal via endorse_thread. This is a mutating operation with minimal 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 extremely concise: a single-sentence action followed by a minimal Args section. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the purpose and parameter adequately. Since an output schema exists (per context), return value details are not needed. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral caveats (e.g., permissions, idempotency), making it merely minimally viable for an agent.

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 defines thread_id as an integer with no description. The description compensates by explaining it as 'the global thread ID (from list_threads or search_threads)', adding meaningful context about how to obtain and identify the parameter, which goes beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Remove the instructor endorsement badge from a thread') and the resource (thread), distinguishing it from siblings like endorse_thread and delete_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 description implies usage by explaining where to get thread_id ('from list_threads or search_threads'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like endorse_thread or delete_thread. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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