Delete Chat History

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds 'This removes conversation history from the database. Use with caution.' which reinforces the destructive nature but does not disclose additional behavioral details like irreversibility or side effects. With annotations carrying the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise (4 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the Args and Returns sections are redundant with the schema and could be omitted. It earns its place for the caution but includes boilerplate.

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?

Given annotations (destructive, idempotent) and an output schema (confirmation), the description is somewhat complete. However, for a destructive tool, it could explain what happens if flow_id is missing or whether deletion is permanent, which would improve safety. It meets minimum viability but lacks depth.

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%, meaning the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond listing them ('Input containing flow_id, optional session_id and chat_id.'). The schema itself provides decent descriptions, but the description adds no extra meaning or usage guidance for parameters. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 explicitly states it deletes chat message history for a specific flow, using clear verb 'Delete' and resource 'chat history'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like flowise_get_chat_history which retrieves history.

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 says 'Delete chat message history for a specific flow' and adds 'Use with caution', which implies the tool is for deletion when needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives beyond the caution.

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