monica_conversations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds operational context beyond that: delete requires confirm: true, and the action list makes clear which operations mutate versus read. It does not say whether deleting a conversation also destroys its messages, which is the one meaningful remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource summary, then a scannable bullet per action with no filler. The opening clause is slightly redundant with the following bullets, but the structure is otherwise tight and well-sized for a five-action tool.

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, five-action tool with no output schema and only 40% schema coverage, the description is only partially complete. The schema explicitly defers per-action field requirements to the tool description ('see tool description'), yet the description never states which fields each action needs — a real gap for create, add_message, and get.

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 only 40% across 10 parameters, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain channel as a contact field type (Email, Phone, Whatsapp, Telegram), the messages array, and the confirm flag, but leaves date, from, limit, and text semantics to the schema, and never maps which fields are required for which action despite the schema's action description pointing to the tool description for that.

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 names the resource (message threads with contacts, as conversations of messages) and enumerates all five operations with a specific verb each: list, get, create, add_message, delete. An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like monica_notes or monica_activities without opening the schema.

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?

Each action gets a short gloss ('list — a contact's conversations, or the most recent across everyone'), which implies when to pick it, and delete notes the confirm requirement. However there is no explicit when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether a contact must already exist), and no routing to alternatives for overlapping needs.

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