update_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't disclose important traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., are they preserved?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update conversation') followed by the modifiable fields. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating required vs. optional fields).

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (permissions, side effects), response format, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema—it lists the same fields but without the detailed constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('conversation'), and specifies the fields that can be modified (status, priority, assignment, title, category). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_conversation' (read-only) and 'delete_conversation' (destructive), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_feature_request' which updates a different resource type.

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 (e.g., needing conversation_id), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new conversations), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'send_reply' (which might also update conversation status). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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