ed_thread_action

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable role-based permission context beyond that. It does not contradict annotations and gives insight into authorization requirements, though it does not detail potential side effects beyond the action semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys both purpose and role constraints without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 toggle tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema fully covers what the tool does, the available actions, and role restrictions. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers thread_id with a description, but action only has an enum. The description compensates by explaining the role-based meaning of the action values, adding semantic context beyond the schema. It does not further explain thread_id but the schema already does.

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 tool toggles Ed thread status ('切换 Ed 帖子状态') and lists the specific actions (star, unstar, pin, unpin, lock, unlock, endorse, unendorse). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ed_get_thread and ed_post_thread by specifying the action verb and resource.

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 explicitly separates which actions are available to students (star/unstar) versus those requiring staff role (pin/unpin/lock/unlock/endorse/unendorse). This provides clear role-based usage guidance, helping the agent determine when the tool is appropriate and what permissions are needed.

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