@git-fabric/chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the action is permanent and irreversible, it deletes all messages, and it removes vectors from Qdrant (an external system). This covers destructive impact, scope, and side effects beyond the basic delete 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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and scope, the second emphasizes irreversibility and mentions Qdrant cleanup. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 does well by covering the irreversible nature, scope (session and messages), and external system impact (Qdrant). It could slightly improve by hinting at permissions or error cases, but it's largely complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, with the parameter 'sessionId' clearly documented as a UUID. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format details or examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('permanently delete') and resource ('a session and all its messages'), distinguishing it from siblings like chat_session_archive (which likely preserves data) and chat_session_get/list (which are read-only). It goes beyond just restating the tool name by specifying the scope of deletion.

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 context for when to use this tool (permanent deletion of sessions) and implies when not to use it (e.g., for archiving or temporary removal, though alternatives aren't explicitly named). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like chat_session_archive, but the irreversible nature strongly guides usage decisions.

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