dismiss_thread

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It conveys the core behavior (soft-close without marking complete) and distinguishes it from mark_done and pause_thread, but it does not disclose potential side effects like visibility changes, notifications, or reversibility. The description adds some context but lacks deeper behavioral detail expected for a mutation tool.

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 fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and usage guidance is tightly packed. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure reads naturally.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description handles purpose and usage well, but given no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, it misses important details about parameter meaning and side effects. For a tool with only 2 parameters, this is a moderate gap, but the description is still functional.

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% and the description does not mention either parameter (thread_id or note). The agent only has the schema's property definitions, which are minimal (just type and title). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter semantics under-specified.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-close a thread' and immediately defines the meaning ('stop without being marked complete'). It also explicitly names sibling tools (mark_done, pause_thread, confirm_thread_relevant, snooze_thread_triage) and distinguishes its purpose from each, making it unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('abandoned, superseded, or no-longer-relevant work') and when-not-to-use alternatives ('Use mark_done when the intended outcome was completed, or pause_thread when it will be resumed later'). It even warns against auto-dismissing from the stale-work check tools, giving clear routing.

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