update_conversation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotated behavior: the update is partial ('patch'), and stored turn/message history is preserved. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether unspecified fields are left untouched, so it is good rather than complete.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the exclusion plus the alternative are front-loaded before any secondary detail. Nothing could be removed without losing routing information.

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 mutation tool with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers scope and the sibling boundary but leaves the most consequential unknown — which fields the nested `conversation` object accepts — entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 coverage is 100%, so agentId, convoId and conversation are each documented, giving a baseline of 3. However the key parameter is a nested object described only as 'Conversation fields to update' — neither the schema nor the description enumerates which fields are patchable, so the description adds nothing beyond restating patch semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('Patch fields') and resource ('the light conversation document'), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that handles transcript replacement. An agent can tell this apart from update_conversation_messages and delete_conversation without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the condition that selects the alternative ('To replace transcript turns, use update_conversation_messages') and states the exclusion ('This does NOT replace the stored turn/message history'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs for the one ambiguous overlap among its siblings.

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