Conversation Update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds partial-update behavior ('only provide fields to change'), but says nothing about permissions, whether reassignment triggers notifications, or side effects of changing a conversation's contact.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource and mutability front-loaded, and no wasted language. The field list is long but each item maps to a real parameter, so it 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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on what can change but silent on side effects, permission requirements, and how it relates to the overlapping specialized siblings. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the overlap with conversation_close/read/spam leaves genuine ambiguity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description names the updatable fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., status codes, two-letter language code).

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Update a customer conversation') with an explicit enumeration of the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool mutates. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that achieve overlapping outcomes (conversation_close, conversation_read, conversation_spam), which handle status/spam changes as dedicated tools.

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?

'Only provide fields to change' conveys partial-update semantics, which is useful, but there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized siblings conversation_close, conversation_read, or conversation_spam. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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