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. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by explaining the soft delete default is reversible and hard delete is permanent, which goes beyond the annotation's simple destructive flag. This clarifies the reversibility of the operation.
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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It is concise and well-structured without unnecessary elaboration.
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 simple delete tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and annotations, the description is complete. It explains the default behavior, the irreversible option, and implies the destructive nature. The output schema covers return values, so no further details are needed.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions hard_delete=true for permanent deletion, which adds a bit of context but essentially mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional semantic depth is provided beyond what the schema already states.
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 deletes a chat session, using the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'chat session'. It also distinguishes between soft and hard deletion, which differentiates it from sibling delete tools like palim_delete_memory and palim_delete_user_rule by focusing on sessions.
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 description provides clear guidance on when to use soft vs. hard delete ('Soft delete by default (reversible). Use hard_delete=true for permanent deletion.'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria for other sibling tools, but the context is sufficient for a delete operation.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially the save/delete actions and help. However, save_context vs save_session and get_context vs search overlap enough that an agent could select the wrong one without reading closely.
All tools share the palim_ prefix and use snake_case, with a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern. help, resume, and search are verb-only names, which is a minor deviation from the otherwise predictable scheme.
Nine tools is a well-scoped number for a memory and session management server. Each tool has a defined role, and there is no obvious bloat or excessive proliferation.
The save_session description explicitly references palim_update_session_metadata and palim_update_session_references, but those tools are not available, creating a workflow dead end. There is also no update/delete mechanism for stored memories, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.
