Name this session's conversation thread on the human's phone (e.g. the project or task you are working on). Shown as the thread title in the app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| session_token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of 'Name' and 'thread title' adds context that this changes a persistent label. This is consistent with the annotations and clarifies the effect without being misleading.
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 compact sentences convey the purpose and the visual context without waste. Every clause adds meaningful information.
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 setter with only two self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent the effect and where the title appears. Minor gaps like whether it overwrites an existing title are not essential for basic usage.
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 for parameter meaning. It does not explain session_token or title, relying solely on their names. The description adds no value beyond the schema's field names, leaving a gap for a critical token parameter.
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 ('Name this session's conversation thread') and specifies the resource and context ('on the human's phone', 'thread title in the app'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like call or text, which handle communication rather than session naming.
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 implies when to use it (when you want to label the current session with a project or task). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different in function, so the context is clear.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: call makes a voice call, poll_result checks on a ringing call, text sends a text, wait_for_reply waits for incoming messages, and set_thread_title names the thread. Even the two polling tools are differentiated by what they poll for (a call vs. general replies).
Tool names are all lower_snake_case but vary in structure: single verbs (call, text) vs. verb phrases (poll_result, set_thread_title, wait_for_reply). While readable, the pattern is not perfectly consistent across the set.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a personal communication server. Each tool covers a distinct and necessary capability without redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core workflows: initiating voice/text communication, polling for results, and waiting for replies. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit thread history retrieval or ability to cancel a call, but these are workable.