delete-object

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description goes further: it states that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that thread deletion cascades to comments, that permission is restricted to creator or workspace admin, and that the call will be rejected otherwise. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the action and variants, the second mandates the required parameter and warns of irreversibility, and the third covers permission constraints. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers what the tool deletes, what each target type means, the required parameter, the irreversibility, the need for user confirmation, and permission restrictions. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the behavioral effect of each targetType value (thread cascades, comment is single, message is direct/group) and explicitly instructs to always pass targetId, which reinforces the schema's required fields.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('Twist object'), then enumerates exactly what each targetType does. It clearly differentiates from siblings like update-object and create-thread by scope and semantics.

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 gives clear operational context: which object types are valid, that targetId is always required, and that deletion is irreversible and requires confirmation. It also names the permission conditions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but it strongly implies the intended use cases.

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