update_thread_statusSet an inbox thread status. Use "archived" to mark a thread as done. Allowed: read, unread, archived, priority, snooze.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | read | unread | archived | priority | snooze. "archived" = done. | |
| chatbot_id | Yes | The chatbot id. | |
| visitor_id | Yes | The thread/visitor id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, idempotency, error handling, or permissions, leaving gaps in 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?
The description is concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema and empty annotations, the description lacks return value information, prerequisites, and potential effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficiently 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?
The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a hint about 'archived' meaning done, providing moderate additional semantic value beyond the schema.
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 the action ('Set an inbox thread status') and the resource ('inbox thread'). It lists allowed statuses and hints that 'archived' marks as done, making it specific and distinct from sibling tools.
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 a hint to use 'archived' for marking done, but does not explicitly state when to avoid the tool or compare with alternatives. Since no sibling tool performs a similar function, the context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (sources, suggested messages, chatbots, inbox, leads, analytics, insights). There is no ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (add_, get_, list_, recrawl_, update_). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
15 tools is well-scoped for a chatbot manager. The set covers all key functional areas without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool surface is largely complete but lacks delete operations: there is no 'remove_suggested_message' (though referenced in a description) and no way to delete a source. These are notable gaps.