Delete Conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds genuinely new facts: the deletion is per-participant (others retain their copy) and is irreversible, which no annotation conveys. It omits what happens on an invalid/already-deleted conversation_id, keeping it from a 5.

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 scope, then the consequence, then the procedural warning in a scannable bracket. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, an agent has everything needed: what it deletes, whose copy is affected, reversibility, and the confirm handshake. No material gap remains.

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 the schema itself already explains confirm as a dry-run gate and conversation_id as coming from list_conversations. The description's bracketed note largely restates that gate rather than adding new semantics, so this lands at the baseline 3.

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 (Delete) plus resource (Inbox conversation) and immediately scopes it: 'from your own inbox. Other participants keep their copy.' That scope clause separates it from archive_conversation and from any admin-wide deletion an agent might assume.

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 bracketed note prescribes the exact invocation sequence (call without confirm=true to preview, then re-call with confirm=true), which is real operational guidance. It stops short of naming archive_conversation as the non-destructive alternative when an agent only wants to remove the item from view.

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