conversations_update_conversation

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare. It does not mention that the tool modifies conversation fields, that it is idempotent, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description still fails to add any extra context about what happens during the update.

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 an extremely short phrase that is under-specified. It lacks any structure, front-loading of key information, or explanation. While concise, it does not earn its place because it offers no useful content beyond the tool name.

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 tool has five parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. An agent would have no idea what fields can be updated, what the effects are, or what the response looks like. The minimal description does not cover the necessary context for correct invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3 even if the description adds no parameter details. The description does not elaborate on any parameter meaning, but the schema already describes most parameters. No additional value is provided, so a 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 'Update Conversation' only restates the tool's name and basic action. It does not specify what aspects of a conversation can be updated (e.g., starred, unreadCount, feedback) nor does it distinguish this tool from other 'update' tools like contacts_update_contact. It fails to convey the specific scope of the update.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other conversation tools such as conversations_create_conversation or conversations_update_message_status. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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