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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the critical destructive traits: permanence ('FINAL and there is no trash'), exact scope of deletion (messages, drafts, files, bytes), and what remains (contact fiche and other correspondence). It does not mention authorization requirements or failure behavior, but covers the core irreversible impact.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Subsequent sentences each add distinct value: irreversibility, the safer alternative, a usage condition, and what persists. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but no sentence is wasted.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is destroyed, permanence, alternative behavior, and when to invoke it. It omits operational details like authentication needs or error handling, but those are less critical for selecting and calling the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about conversation_id beyond the schema's own note ('as list_conversations gives it'). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a thread and everything it holds'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling file_conversation, which is for reversible trashing. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and how it differs from alternatives.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('not the gesture for tidying an inbox'), names the alternative ('file_conversation with "trash" is'), and provides a clear condition for use ('only when the record itself must not remain, and when the person asking knows that is what they are asking for').

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