Update a conversation's state (open, closed, snoozed, spam, trash), star status, or assignee in Send16.
Update conversation state (open/closed/snoozed/spam/trash), star, or assignee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | New state | |
| apiKey | No | Send16 API key (overrides SEND16_API_KEY env var) | |
| convoId | Yes | Conversation ID | |
| starred | No | Star/unstar | |
| assigneeId | No | Workspace member ID, or null to unassign |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions mutation but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or immediate updates.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words.
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?
No output schema; description does not explain return value or behavior when multiple params are set. Incomplete for a mutation tool.
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 schema already defines each parameter. The description does not add new meaning beyond listing actions.
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 states the tool updates conversation state, star, or assignee, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like mark_convo_read and get_convo.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_convo_note, send_reply). Agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.