set_categoryFiles a conversation under bug, billing, idea, question or other. The user doesn't see it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | The category to file it under. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | The conversation's id (from list_conversations or get_user). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Its category now. | |
| conversation_id | Yes | The conversation. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / category / descriptionAdded value: +"The category to file it under."Input schema / properties / conversation_id / descriptionAdded value: +"The conversation's id (from list_conversations or get_user)."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "category": {
+ "description": "Its category now.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "conversation_id": {
+ "description": "The conversation.",
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "conversation_id",
+ "category"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world writes. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact not in the structured data: the categorization is internal and 'the user doesn't see it.' It doesn't say whether re-setting replaces a prior category, but the idempotentHint covers repeated calls.
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 terse sentences; the core action is front-loaded and the visibility caveat is a single useful clause. Nothing is wasted.
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 2-parameter required-field tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and the key invisible-to-user behavior. It omits routing guidance relative to tag_conversation/set_status and overwrite semantics, but those are minor given full schema coverage.
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%, with both parameters fully described and the category enum spelled out in both schema and description. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond restating the enum, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Files') plus resource ('a conversation') and enumerates the exact category enum values, so the agent knows precisely what the tool does. It is distinguishable from siblings like set_status and tag_conversation, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 says nothing about when to use this versus tag_conversation or set_status, nor any preconditions (e.g., that the conversation must exist or have no category). Usage is only implied by the verb.
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.