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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that re-sending the same state is a no-op write, that the tool broadcasts a conversation-updated event, that no other conversation field can be changed, and that customer identifiers, staff ids, and organization ids are never returned. This adds meaningful behavioral and privacy context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by idempotency, side-effect, and constraint information. Every sentence contributes distinct 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?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness, the description supplies the remaining necessary context: mutation scope, event broadcasting, and return-value privacy guarantees. Nothing essential for correctly selecting and invoking this tool is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description restates the resolved/reopened semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark one organization-owned Supovia conversation resolved, or reopen it.' It clearly defines the action, including the two possible states, and further disambiguates scope by stating that no other conversation field can be changed through this tool.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool to resolve or reopen a conversation, and explicitly warns that no other conversation field can be changed through it. It does not name an alternative tool for other conversation updates, but the exclusion is clear enough for an agent to avoid using it for unrelated changes.

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