resolve_thread_by_id

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It says 'resolve' implying state change but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, or what happens after resolution (e.g., thread closed). The description is too terse for full transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with action and usage condition. Every word contributes.

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?

Despite no output schema, the tool's simplicity (2 params) and the given description cover the essential decision-making context. It might benefit from mentioning that resolution marks the thread as closed, but it's largely complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. It reiterates the identifier concept from schema but offers no new semantics.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'resolve an open thread' and the key identifier 'stable thread_id'. It differentiates from siblings by noting 'preferred when the thread_id is known — avoids ambiguity when multiple threads share keywords', which contrasts with an alternative like 'resolve_thread' that may use other identifiers.

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 says when to use: 'when the thread_id is known'. Implicitly advises against use when thread_id is unknown or ambiguous. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use, so it loses a point.

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