missive_merge_conversations

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing what happens (messages, comments, entries move), stating it is irreversible, and noting that the returned conversation ID may differ due to potential swapping. This fully informs the agent of behavioral consequences.

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 concise (three sentences) with the purpose stated first, followed by essential details and caution. Every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

The description covers the merge process, irreversibility, and possible ID swap, but lacks explicit mention of the return value structure. While the output schema is absent, describing the return format would improve completeness.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds context by clarifying the roles of source and target IDs and explaining the optional subject parameter renames the merged conversation, enriching the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Merges one conversation INTO another', providing a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'missive_update_conversations' by emphasizing the merge action and irreversibility.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for merging conversations, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. However, the irreversibility warning serves as implicit guidance for cautious use.

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