update_thread

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. It states 'updates' but doesn't clarify if this is a partial or full update, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 in Japanese with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action, though brevity here reflects under-specification rather than optimal clarity. Structurally, it's concise but lacks depth.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively. The context signals indicate complexity (3 parameters), but the description doesn't compensate.

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 100%, with all parameters (thread_id, name, body) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.

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 'スレッドを更新します' (Updates a thread) states the basic action and resource but lacks specificity. It doesn't clarify what aspects of a thread can be updated or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_record' or 'add_thread_comment'. The purpose is clear at a high level but vague about scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for updating various resources (e.g., 'update_record', 'update_space'), the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. It's a generic statement without practical usage direction.

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