Permanently remove a Copilot conversation thread from local memory using thread ID with revision and confirmation checks; it does not delete LinkedIn or CRM records.
Delete Copilot conversation memory only; does not delete LinkedIn or CRM records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| revision | Yes | ||
| threadId | Yes | ||
| confirmation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful scope by clarifying that only Copilot conversation memory is deleted, but it does not explain permanence, recovery, confirmation expectations, or revision conflicts.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It is efficient, though perhaps too sparse given the destructive operation and required parameters.
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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers only deletion scope. The annotations help with safety hints, but the missing explanation of revision and confirmation leaves the agent without needed invocation context.
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?
There are three required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains threadId, revision, or confirmation. In particular, revision and confirmation are completely opaque from the description.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: deleting Copilot conversation memory. It also explicitly bounds the operation against LinkedIn and CRM records, so an agent can distinguish it from broader CRM deletion or other Copilot management tools.
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 states what is not deleted, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives such as pausing a thread, exporting memory, or syncing. Usage is only implied by the scope boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.