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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the timing (within the hour), scope (every chat of the company), permanence (for good), collateral effects (files erased, journal entry), and an exception (issues made from a message keep their words). This is exactly the behavioral context needed for a destructive retention change.

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 and owner restriction are front-loaded, followed by parameter consequences, default, exception, and warning. It is dense but mostly earns its words; the phrase 'and so on from then' is slightly awkward, but the length is justified by the destructive operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers authority, timing, scope, irreversibility, default behavior, side effects, and an important exception. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and safely.

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?

Although the schema already documents the single parameter and its allowed values at 100% coverage, the description adds essential semantics: what each retention period actually does, that omission means indefinite retention and erases nothing, and that issue-derived messages are exempt from deletion.

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: choosing how long this company's chats are kept. Adds the crucial scope that only the company owner can do it, which distinguishes it from read-only chat tools such as get_chat_keeping.

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?

Clearly indicates the owner-only permission context and explains the default behavior when 'days' is omitted. It also warns to ask the owner before shortening retention. It does not explicitly name get_chat_keeping as the read-only alternative, so it falls short of full when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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