update_conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating this is a safe-to-repeat mutation. The description adds no further behavioral traits (e.g., error behavior, auth requirements) beyond 'Update fields', which aligns with annotations but provides no extra value.

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 sentence, making it concise but excessively terse. It fails to front-load parameter details or usage context, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 no output schema, 4 parameters, nested objects, and zero schema coverage, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits how extra_fields works, required field formats, and response behavior, making it insufficient for correct tool invocation.

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?

With 4 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by listing or explaining parameters. It only says 'Update fields' without mentioning specific fields like subject, description, or extra_fields, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 'Update fields on an existing Planhat conversation.' It uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Planhat conversation'), and distinctively contrasts with sibling tools such as create_conversation (create) and get_conversation (read).

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 implies the tool is used to modify an existing conversation, which provides clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools for similar updates on other entities.

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