rws_conversation_save

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive closed-world write, and the description reinforces that this registers an existing reference rather than creating or sending a chat. It adds useful scope, but does not explain idempotency/concurrency behavior around expectedRevision or what happens on revision mismatch.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the negative scope clause is useful. It is arguably too terse for the nested schema, but the text itself is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool has a complex nested schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and no output schema, yet the description is only one sentence. It orients the agent to the operation's purpose but leaves critical invocation details, especially record shape and expectedRevision semantics, unexplained.

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% across four required parameters, including a nested record object with title, uri, and refs, plus requestId, projectId, and expectedRevision. The description provides no meaning for any of these parameters and only vaguely alludes to a "conversation reference".

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?

Uses a specific verb, "Register", with a clear resource, "conversation reference", and adds a negative scope note that distinguishes it from chat creation or sending. The purpose is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Implies usage when an existing conversation reference needs to be recorded, and explicitly excludes creating or sending a chat. However, it gives no guidance on prerequisites, when to prefer this over related save/register siblings, or how expectedRevision affects use.

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