move_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the operation is a write and that it makes the chat visible to agents in the Chatea Pro inbox, which is helpful. However, it omits details about permissions, reversibility, and any response or side effects beyond the visibility statement.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core operation and status values are front-loaded, and each remaining detail (`user_ns` source and inbox visibility) earns its place.

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 two-parameter write operation, the description covers the necessary invocation details: the statuses allowed, the source of the `user_ns` parameter, and the resulting visibility. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward enough that the given context is largely sufficient.

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. It does so by enumerating the allowed values for `status` and by telling the agent that `user_ns` comes from `find_contact`, adding meaning that the bare input schema lacks. It stops short of explaining the nuanced meaning of each status, but the essential semantics are present.

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 states a specific action ('Move a contact's chat') and explicitly enumerates the allowed target states (`open`, `pending`, `spam`, `done`). It clearly identifies the resource being affected and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides useful context such as `user_ns` coming from `find_contact` and the effect of the write, but it does not explicitly state when this tool should be used instead of a sibling tool or when it should be avoided. Usage intent is implied rather than directly specified.

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