update_conversation

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the partial-update semantics ('only the fields you pass change, one request each'), failure behavior ('the error names it and the fields already changed before it'), and destructive side effects like read_only ending a running call and public=False removing link-joined participants. This is exactly the kind of extra context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, then well-organized Args section. Slightly verbose in places (the public line is dense), but every sentence conveys behavioral constraints that an agent needs, so nothing is wasted.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with a destructive annotation, zero schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies auth requirements, partial-update/failure semantics, per-field side effects, and return shape ('JSON with the conversation afterwards'). Nothing essential 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 carry the full load — and it does: it documents character limits for name and description, the empty-string removal convention, the semantics of read_only and public including password-requirement failures, and the constraints on preserved (owners only, Talk 25). This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a conversation for everyone in it') with scope made explicit via 'for everyone in it', distinguishing it from per-user tools like set_conversation_preferences. An agent can immediately tell this is a conversation-wide mutation.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite ('Needs moderator rights') and conditions for specific fields (public fails for one-to-one, note-to-self, breakout conversations; preserved needs owners and Talk 25). It lacks explicit routing to sibling tools like delete_conversation or set_conversation_tags, but the field-level conditions are strong.

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