Assign a conversation to a specific user for manual delegation by providing the agent, conversation, and target user IDs.
Assign a conversation to a user for manual delegation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentId | Yes | The agent ID | |
| convoId | Yes | The conversation ID | |
| delegatedBy | No | Optional: ID of user delegating | |
| assignToUserId | Yes | User ID to assign to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and non-idempotency profile is already known. The description adds that this is a delegation action, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether prior assignment is overwritten, or what the caller gets back—gaps that matter for a mutation with no output schema.
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 ten-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource with no filler. Conciseness is good, though brevity here borders on under-specification.
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 4 parameters and no output schema, and the description omits the response shape, permission needs, and reassignment behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile and the schema covering parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves real operational gaps.
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 agentId, convoId, delegatedBy, and assignToUserId are all documented in the schema. The description only implies assignToUserId meaning via 'to a user'; it adds no format, constraints, or semantics about delegatedBy beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3.
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 verb (assign) and resource (conversation), and adds the target (a user) plus intent (manual delegation). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like update_conversation or send_handoff_reminder, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest 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?
'For manual delegation' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the conversation must exist, the user must be in the workspace), and no comparison to the many sibling conversation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.