iva_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names potentially destructive operations such as 'delete chats' and 'clear history' but never explains side effects, reversibility, confirmation requirements, or permission expectations. The version string 'Clients API v2.28.12' adds context but no behavioral clarity.

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 one front-loaded sentence that efficiently summarizes the tool's scope and ends with a useful version tag. It has no fluff, though the middle is a list-like inventory of operations rather than a more structured overview. It earns high marks for conciseness.

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 the very rich input schema—21 parameters, a required action enum, and per-action usage descriptions inside the schema—the high-level description works as an adequate overview. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, leaving return shapes and side effects unspecified, so the description alone would not be fully sufficient. The schema compensates enough to raise this above a 3.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning; it only restates operation categories. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ("IVA chat management") and enumerates concrete operations: create group chat, get/search/update/delete chats, forward messages, clear history, manage notifications, get P2P chat, get muted chats. This is clear and non-tautological, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like iva_chat_messages or iva_chat_participants, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prose gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over its chat-focused siblings, nor does it state any exclusions. The 'use when' hints live only inside the action enum in the input schema, which is structured data rather than description content. An agent selecting between iva_chat and iva_chat_messages gets no tool-level direction from the description.

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