Conversations: Toggle Priority

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, not idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds genuinely useful context: accepted auth modes (User API key or Agent bot API key via api-access-token header), the exact request shape, the extra_body escape hatch, and the fact that text is forwarded unchanged. It does not describe rate limits or side effects such as notifications to assignees.

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 purpose and enum values are front-loaded and the remaining lines are compact, though the endpoint path, auth, extra_body, and Persian-digit note are stacked densely. The digits/extra_body notes are low-frequency trivia but cheap, so the text is mostly earned.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and four schema-documented params, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly: auth modes, body shape, and the extra_body fallback. Only the response behavior and any downstream effects are left unstated.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only restates that 'priority' is the body field and that extra_body merges additional keys. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load and no extra syntax or constraint detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set the priority of a conversation') and immediately enumerates the accepted values (urgent, high, medium, low, none), plus the exact endpoint. This clearly separates it from the adjacent gapify_toggle_conversation_status sibling, which operates on a different attribute.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the stated resource, and the auth prerequisite is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives for related conversation mutations (status, assignee, labels).

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