Perplexity: Conversations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful context — archive means "not picked automatically" and conversations survive an agent restart — but it never spells out the consequence of the destructive archive action (reversibility, data retention). It adds value without fully earning the destructive warning.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the registry identity and action list lead, and the persistence/continuation note follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 multi-action, no-output-schema tool it covers the operations and the continuation path well. It could say more about what list/show return and the effect of limit, but the schema carries the parameters and the core call path is complete.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only adds the cross-tool hint that the alias value feeds perplexity_ask's thread parameter, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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 names the resource ("persistent conversation registry") and enumerates the four specific operations (list, show, resume, archive), which map directly to the action enum. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling that continues a conversation by naming perplexity_ask explicitly, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

It gives clear per-action context and, crucially, routes the agent to the alternative ("continue it with perplexity_ask thread=<alias>") for the case this tool doesn't cover. It doesn't, however, state when to prefer archive vs resume or any prerequisites, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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