mark-thread-as-resolved

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Mark as resolved' implies a mutation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error conditions. It lacks details on what 'resolved' means in context or the tool's response format.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without 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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'Mark'), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, three required parameters, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'roomId', 'threadId', or 'data.userId' represent, their formats, or relationships. With three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent guessing.

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 action ('Mark') and resource ('a Liveblocks thread as resolved'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'mark-thread-as-unresolved' by specifying the resolution state, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other thread-related tools like 'delete-thread' or 'edit-thread-metadata'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an unresolved thread), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'mark-thread-as-unresolved' or 'delete-thread'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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