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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing replacement semantics ('tags replaces the whole list') and an auth requirement (editor role). It does not clarify partial-update behavior for the other fields.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the operation and lists the editable fields with zero filler. The comma-heavy field list is slightly dense but appropriately sized.

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?

No output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, for an 8-parameter mutation tool it leaves ambiguity about whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared (replacement semantics are stated only for tags), which an agent would need to know.

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 63%, with several params (pinned, client_name, status enum) lacking schema descriptions; the description enumerates these fields and clarifies the tags replacement rule. It still leaves format expectations for fields like snooze unstated, but compensates for much of the coverage gap.

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 (change) and resource (dialog) and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what it edits. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative to route against, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a prerequisite ('Requires editor role') but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not route to alternatives such as dosai_toggle_bot_in_conversation or dosai_add_conversation_note. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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