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. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the deletion affects the entire conversation for both participants, and user confirmation is required.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted language. The scope and confirmation requirement are both stated immediately.

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 output schema and a single undocumented required parameter, the description is incomplete. It should clarify what user_id represents, how the conversation is selected, and whether deleted content is recoverable.

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 0%, so the description must explain the sole parameter, user_id. It does not mention user_id at all, nor does it explain how the target conversation is identified, leaving the required parameter completely ambiguous for a destructive operation.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Deletes a whole conversation") and clarifies the scope with "for both sides," which distinguishes it from deleting individual comments or messages. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling conversation tools like read_conversation or list_conversations, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It gives an important procedural precondition: "Ask the user for confirmation first." However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites such as permissions or whether the deletion is permanent.

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