update_conversation_custom_attributes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only one trait: a 500 response when the body is not valid JSON. Critical behavior for a custom-attribute mutation is absent, notably whether supplied keys merge with or replace existing attributes, what permissions are needed, and whether removing keys is possible.

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?

The text is short and front-loaded, and the 500 error note is a legitimate line. But the body is largely scaffolding — a restated title, a raw endpoint, and a 'Tags: Conversations' line that adds nothing an agent can act on.

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 free-form body, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves major questions unanswered: merge versus replace semantics, permission requirements, and what a successful response looks like. The one error note does not compensate for those 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 both the 'uuid' path parameter and the free-form 'body' object are structurally documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema — in particular it says nothing about how body keys are interpreted against existing attributes, which is the one thing a caller most needs.

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 line 'Update Conversation Custom Attributes' plus 'PUT /api/v1/conversations/{uuid}/custom-attributes' does identify a concrete verb (update) and resource (a conversation's custom attributes), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, the sentence is essentially the tool name restated, and it offers no differentiation from the sibling 'update_contact_custom_attributes' beyond the resource noun.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of when a caller should prefer this over update_contact_custom_attributes or a draft-upsert tool. The only usage-adjacent statement is a 500 error condition, which is about failure behavior rather than tool selection.

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