Reabrir conversa

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's added value is that the effect is externally visible to the customer or the team and that the feature is experimental. It stops short of describing the resulting state (where the conversation reappears) or whether the action is reversible, which would fully close the loop.

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?

Three short sentences ordered by importance: what it does, how consequential it is, then the approval gate. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

The safety-critical context (real, visible, needs explicit approval) is covered and annotations carry the destructive profile. However, for a destructive mutation with an undocumented identifier parameter and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent guessing about the contact argument format and what state the conversation ends up in.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'contact', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether it expects a contact ID, phone number, or name, which is a real risk for a destructive action that must target the right conversation.

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 (reopen) and resource (a concluded conversation) and anchors the source location 'Atendimentos Concluídos', which separates it from aspa_conclude and aspa_list_concluded. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives a clear, hard precondition: only call after the user explicitly approved this exact action in the conversation. No alternative tool is named for the case where the user wants to view or act on concluded conversations (e.g. aspa_list_concluded), but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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