update_conversation_priority

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral requirement (the `conversations:update_priority` permission) and the mutation method (PUT), but says nothing about idempotency, whether the change is visible immediately, what happens with invalid values, or what the response contains.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the operation name, then permission and endpoint. The 'Tags: Conversations' line is filler, but otherwise there is no wasted prose.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the essentials (path, permission, allowed values via schema) are present. Missing is any statement of what the call returns or what changes for the user; the permission note is the only added value.

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%; both uuid and priority are documented in the schema, and priority's enum is fully enumerated. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 text restates the tool name ("Update Conversation Priority") and adds the endpoint PUT /api/v1/conversations/{uuid}/priority, which confirms the resource scope. It never explains in prose what 'priority' means for a conversation or how it distinguishes the tool from siblings like update_conversation_status or update_conversation_assignee_last_seen, so purpose is only implied.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions beyond the permission string, and no note on side effects. The only implicit guidance is the HTTP endpoint, which the agent must interpret itself.

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