Conversations: Toggle Status

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent mutation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: the POST endpoint, the two accepted credential types (User API key or Agent bot API key via api-access-token header), and that extra_body can carry unlisted fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by endpoint, auth, and body field notes. It is dense but every sentence carries operational information; only the trailing digit/language note feels slightly incidental.

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?

With no output schema required, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke the tool: target statuses, endpoint, expected auth, and the extra_body escape hatch for unlisted fields. Return-value behavior is not addressed but is not needed here.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by noting that text values may be written in Persian/Farsi or other languages and sent unchanged, and that IDs/numbers/phones may use Persian or Arabic-Indic digits.

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 ('Change the status of a conversation') and enumerates the exact target states (open, resolved, pending, snoozed), which cleanly separates it from the sibling gapify_toggle_conversation_priority. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 tells you what the operation does but never states when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g. assign_conversation, toggle_conversation_priority) or any prerequisite like the conversation needing to exist. Usage is only implied by the verb and endpoint.

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