Set Status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and meets it: it discloses the quorum gate, the missing-verdicts rejection report, the terminal nature of wontfix, and the human-only revert rule. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose and the exactly-one parameter rule are front-loaded, and each gating clause carries operational weight. The stage-version note (3a/3b) is somewhat extra but still explains current gate behavior.

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 five parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main edge cases: quorum gating, active-member relaxation, auto-resolve, and the human_override requirement for wontfix. It is slightly ambiguous whether the quorum gate applies to single-comment status changes as well as whole-thread changes, but it is otherwise sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by stating the mutual exclusivity of thread_id/comment_id and the conditional circumstances requiring human_override. It does not repeat the schema's field-by-field definitions.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Mark'), a precise resource ('a thread or a single comment'), and the allowed states ('resolved or wontfix (set back to open)'). This is clearly distinct from the sibling set_verdict, which deals with member verdicts rather than thread/comment status.

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 gives explicit invocation rules: pass exactly one of thread_id/comment_id, and it spells out when manual 'resolved' is rejected and when human_override is mandatory for 'wontfix'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for deciding between status and verdict, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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