Update Thread Status

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

The annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the return value ('Updated thread object') and explains the semantics of each status, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations and not contradictory.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by two concise usage tips, a compact args list, and a return line. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no unnecessary repetition or 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 simple three-parameter status update tool, the description fully covers the action, valid statuses, and return type. The annotations supply idempotency and non-destructive hints, and the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit return statement. No additional context is needed.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and an enum for status, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description's Args section largely restates the schema, and the additional status usage notes replicate the schema's own descriptions, so it adds little meaning beyond the structured data.

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 'Change a thread's status to active, resolved, or archived' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the allowed values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dialogue_create_thread or dialogue_post_message, which have different purposes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use 'resolved' versus 'archived', helping the agent choose the correct status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous, and the sibling context makes it clear that this is the dedicated status-change tool.

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