set_thread_settled

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description goes beyond these by disclosing the precise rejection preconditions for settling, which is valuable operational context. It stops short of what 'settled' actually changes or how reactivation behaves, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: what it does, the rejection conditions, and the alternative. The core action is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the preconditions and the fallback sibling, which is the main missing piece. Remaining gaps are the semantics of `commandId` and any return/state-change detail, which are secondary here.

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 carry parameter meaning. It implies the `settled` boolean via 'settle or reactivate' and `threadId` via 'peer thread', but `commandId` is completely undocumented in either the schema or the description. Partial compensation only.

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 verb set (settle/reactivate) and resource (peer thread in this project), which is clear and distinguishable from siblings like create_thread or read_thread. It does not explicitly contrast with other thread-mutation siblings, but the pairing of both directions through the `settled` flag is well conveyed.

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?

Explicitly states the blocking conditions for settling (work running/queued, or pending blocking approvals) and names the alternative (interrupt_thread) with the condition that selects it. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance an agent needs.

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