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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. While the idempotentHint annotation already signals idempotence, the description elaborates ('re-sending the same state is a no-op write'), adds that it 'broadcasts a conversation-updated event to the operator dashboard', and guarantees that 'customer identifiers, staff ids, and organization ids are never returned'. This provides critical behavioral context that the annotations alone do not cover.

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 tight and well-structured: three sentences, each adding distinct value. It leads with the core action, then explains idempotency, then the event broadcast and privacy guarantee, and finally restricts scope. No wasted words; front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 state-toggle tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description covers all necessary aspects: the action, the idempotent behavior, the side effect (event broadcast), and the privacy boundary. It also clarifies the tool's limited scope. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%: both parameters (conversationId and resolved) have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The description merely paraphrases 'resolved/reopen' without adding syntax, format, or default information. Per calibration, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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 tool's function: 'Mark one organization-owned Supovia conversation resolved, or reopen it.' It specifies the resource (conversation), the action (resolve/reopen), and the scope ('No other conversation field can be changed'). This distinguishes it from other conversation tools in the sibling list, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context by stating it can only change the resolved field, but it does not explicitly identify alternatives or when to use them. It fails to mention, for instance, that get_conversation is for reading or open_customer_inbox_conversation for opening. The guidance is implicit rather than direct, so it earns a 3.

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