update_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses that the first line of content is rewritten with a self-documenting audit line, change_note can be auto-derived, tag operations have specific replace/mutate semantics with mutual exclusivity, metadata is validated/sanitized, and record_audit=False preserves imported content verbatim. These are all meaningful behavioral traits beyond the tool name.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each paragraph earns its place: partial update mechanics, audit behavior, tag semantics, metadata validation, and special record_audit usage. It is detailed without being bloated.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, this description is remarkably complete. It covers partial updates, audit-line side effects, tag exclusivity, metadata sanitization, and audit suppression. The presence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, so no critical calling information is missing.

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. It does well for tags, change_note, record_audit, conversation_id, and metadata fields, but title and content are only covered implicitly via 'any subset of fields to change.' The tag semantics and audit behavior add substantial value beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on an existing conversation in place.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, distinguishing it from add_conversation, get_conversation, and the search family without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: modifying an existing conversation by passing conversation_id with a subset of fields. It also provides usage guidance for record_audit, recommending default audit for interactive updates and record_audit=False for preserving authoritative imports, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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