change_conversation_status

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that status can be changed and optionally assign agent or send message, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., closing other conversations, permissions required, or reversibility). Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. Uses a colon to list statuses efficiently. Could be slightly more structured but is concise overall.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and only destructiveHint annotation, the description leaves many gaps: prerequisites, what happens after status change, error cases, or return format. Incomplete for safe agent usage.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description covers only 'status' and hints at 'agent_id' and 'send_end_message'/'message', but does not explain 'wa_id', 'from_id', or how parameters interact. Insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Cambia'), the resource ('estado de la conversación con un contacto'), and the possible values ('open, hold or closed'). It also mentions optional actions, making the purpose specific and easily distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., assign_agent_to_contact, send_message). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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