Attach an exact native provider session to a shared conversation by specifying conversation ID, provider, and native ID. Enables coordinated message passing while preserving provider isolation.
Attach an exact native provider session to a shared conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No | ||
| nativeId | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes | ||
| workspaceId | No | ||
| conversationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.18Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries a lighter burden. However, it adds little beyond the verb 'attach'—no mention of side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens to an existing attached session. The term 'exact' implies precision but is not elaborated.
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 sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a simple purpose.
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 tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, enums on role and provider, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't clarify the semantics of 'attach' (e.g., is it additive? does it replace? is it reversible?), what role controls, or why workspaceId is needed. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without external knowledge.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameters. It only indirectly references provider and nativeId via 'native provider session' and conversationId via 'shared conversation', but role and workspaceId are entirely unexplained. This is minimal value over the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('native provider session') to state what the tool does. The phrase 'exact native provider session' hints at the provider and nativeId parameters, and 'shared conversation' maps to conversationId. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like conversation_reconcile or session_resume, but the core action is clear enough.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., conversation_create, session_resume) would be more appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage from the terse description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.