confirm_thread_relevant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: 'Quiets the “still relevant?” prompt via reminder cooldown' and explicitly states what it does not do ('does not change status and never dismisses'). It does not mention error behavior or return format, but the output schema exists, and the side effects are adequately described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then efficiently covers exclusions and alternatives. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and alternatives. It does not explain the parameter semantics or error conditions, but given the simplicity and available schema, it is nearly 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It never mentions thread_id, leaving its purpose and format implicit. The tool name and description imply it identifies the stale open thread, but the description does not explicitly explain the parameter, which is a gap given zero schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Confirm') on a specific resource ('a stale open thread') and places it in context ('Wave 7 soft triage'). It also clearly differentiates from siblings by stating what it does not do ('does not change status and never dismisses').

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 names alternatives and their conditions: 'Use snooze_thread_triage to ask again later, or dismiss_thread only when the human intentionally abandons it.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and when not to use this tool.

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