update_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Updates an Inbox App conversation.' It does not disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or the fact that some fields (like person) are conditionally editable (though some of this appears in the schema). The PUT method implies idempotency but that's not stated explicitly.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and resource. Including the endpoint is useful for precise identification. It could add a little more detail (e.g., list of updatable fields) without becoming verbose, but it earns its place.

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 tool with 10 parameters, two required, and no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It gives no summary of what aspects of a conversation can be updated (subject, archived, assignment, etc.), which is important for an agent to know before opening the schema. The schema compensates but the description is not complete enough on its own.

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?

The description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema already describes 8 of 10 parameters (80% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Updates') and resource ('Inbox App conversation'), and includes the HTTP PUT endpoint, which makes it clear this is the updating tool for conversations. It is distinct from sibling tools that handle messages or notes, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or conditions. An agent cannot tell when to pick this over post_inbox_apps_message or other conversation-related tools.

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