mark-thread-as-unresolved

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs a mutation ('Mark'), implying it changes thread state, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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, 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, error handling, and expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies thread state, this minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use it 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 the description must compensate. It adds no information about parameters beyond what's implied by the tool name. The three required parameters (roomId, threadId, data with userId) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their semantics unclear. The description fails to explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used.

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'), specifying the target state ('as unresolved'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mark-thread-as-resolved' by explicitly mentioning the opposite state, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 for marking threads unresolved, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit-thread-metadata' or prerequisites. It doesn't mention the sibling 'mark-thread-as-resolved' as an alternative or specify contexts where this tool is appropriate, leaving usage context inferred rather than stated.

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