Marcar una conversación

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, and the description is consistent with that: toggling between resolved and reopened is reversible state change. It adds the classroom scoping context, but says nothing about idempotency, error behavior on an already-resolved thread, or required permissions beyond the ambiguous bracket tag.

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 sentence with the scope tag front-loaded and no filler. The only weakness is that the bracketed team tag is terse enough to be ambiguous.

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 three-parameter state mutation with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It leaves open what a successful call returns and whether the caller must already be a classroom team member, which matters given the large sibling surface around chats and classrooms.

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 coverage is 67%, with thread_id ('Conversación') and classroom_id ('Aula') already described and status constrained by an enum. The description only loosely ties the thread to the classroom and maps 'resuelto'/'abierto' to resolved/reopen, adding marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: it marks a classroom conversation as resolved or reopens it. That is clearly distinct from sibling tools like reply_chat, get_chat_thread or delete_chat. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for closing or reopening a thread rather than reading or replying to it. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the thread to exist or being on the classroom team (only the bracketed '[Equipo del aula]' tag hints at that).

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