iva_conference_chat

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists destructive operations like remove, remove_all, and moderate, but does not disclose side effects, confirmation requirements, whether changes are reversible, or what the returned data looks like.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists operations efficiently. The trailing 'Clients API v2.28.12' is minor noise, but overall the structure is concise and scannable.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with 17 parameters, 10 actions, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain which parameters apply to which action, how pagination works, what export_txt returns, or how destructive actions are confirmed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the operation list, but the action enum in the schema provides detailed bilingual explanations for each operation.

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 identifies the resource as 'IVA conference chat messages' and enumerates the operations it supports: send, edit, remove, moderate, get, export, typing, and remove-all. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like iva_chat_messages or iva_chat.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites such as requiring a conferenceSessionId, nor does it explain which sibling tools should be used instead for non-conference chat scenarios.

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