Change Conversation Status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the snoozed/snoozed_until interaction, but says nothing about what the destructive behavior actually entails — whether resolving notifies the customer, whether the change is reversible, or what is returned.

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 is front-loaded correctly in one sentence. But the second sentence ('This tool updates the conversation status') is pure restatement, and the Args section duplicates a schema that is already fully documented, so a meaningful share of the text does not earn 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, an agent still lacks the side effects of each status transition and the shape of the response. Parameter coverage is complete, so this is adequate but with a clear gap around mutation consequences.

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 baseline is 3. The Args block largely restates the schema; notably it omits the schema's useful nuance that snoozing without snoozed_until lasts until the next customer reply, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema and slightly loses some.

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 Chatwoot conversation') and enumerates the four target statuses. The mutation framing makes it trivially distinguishable from the list/get/create-message siblings.

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 only guidance is the pairing rule 'use snoozed together with snoozed_until to schedule a reopen', which is genuinely useful. There is no when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisite/permission context, and no statement of when not to use it (e.g., vs. merely reading or replying to a conversation).

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