mistral_delete_conversationPermanently remove a specified conversation by its ID from Mistral AI. Use it to clear unwanted conversations and manage your workspace.
Delete a conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| conversation_id | Yes | Conversation ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Delete' – it does not explain whether deletion is permanent, what data is removed, or whether related history is affected. It does not contradict the annotations, but it contributes nothing extra.
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 a single short sentence and is front-loaded with the core action. It wastes no words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with complete schema and annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return behavior or side effects, but annotations cover the destructive nature and there is no output schema to describe.
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 single required parameter conversation_id is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 'Delete a conversation.' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, which is a tautology per the rubric. It states a specific verb and resource, but adds no distinguishing information beyond the name, so it does not help an agent differentiate this tool from siblings like mistral_delete_agent or mistral_delete_file.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mistral_get_conversation or mistral_list_conversations, nor any mention of prerequisites or consequences. The description gives no indication of when this operation is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.