Delete a chat session. Soft delete by default (reversible). Use hard_delete=true for permanent deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session ID to delete | |
| hard_delete | No | If true, permanently deletes all data. Default: false (soft delete). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | Human-readable tool result text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "description": "Human-readable tool result text.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral fact that the default path is a reversible soft delete and only hard_delete=true destroys data permanently, which the annotations alone cannot express.
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, front-loaded with the action and default behavior, then the opt-in for permanence. Every sentence carries distinct information and none 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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly, including which mode is destructive. It stops short of noting any side effects on related data (memories, context) that a session deletion might cascade to.
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% and both parameters are documented there, including the default for hard_delete. The description restates that same soft/hard dichotomy without adding format, identifier, or response details, so it sits at the baseline for a fully covered 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a chat session') and immediately scopes the operation by naming the two deletion modes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like palim_delete_memory or palim_save_session, whose resources are memory and session creation respectively.
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 an explicit condition for selecting the harder mode ('Use hard_delete=true for permanent deletion'), and frames the default as reversible. It does not, however, say when an agent should delete a session at all versus using palim_save_session or palim_checkpoint, so no cross-tool routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.