mark_thread_addressed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the state transition to In Review, that the note is optional, and that resolution is impossible here. It omits permission requirements, idempotency, and what confirmation the caller receives, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the trigger, then the capability boundary. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and the key constraint. It does not describe the return/confirmation the agent should expect, which is the only remaining gap.

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 both parameters are already documented (message and thread_id). The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the deliberate absence of a status argument, heading off an incorrect invocation; it adds no format or syntax detail, only rationale.

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?

States a specific action ('hand a thread back to a human'), the resulting state change ('moves to In Review'), and an optional side effect ('posts your closing note'). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_thread_message, create_pr_for_thread, or get_thread_conversation.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the change is ready') and a clear capability boundary ('It CANNOT resolve a thread — only a person does that'), which functions as a when-not. It does not name a sibling tool to use instead for adjacent cases, so it stops short of the top score.

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