Delete conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by adding two things annotations cannot express: the deletion applies to all participants ("for everyone") and requires moderator privileges. It stops short of saying the action is irreversible or what happens to the conversation's history.

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?

One front-loaded sentence carries the essential scope and permission facts with zero padding. The trailing HTTP endpoint line is arguably noise for an agent but is short and does supply the token's meaning, so it mostly earns its place.

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 mutation with annotations already covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description supplies the remaining decision-critical facts: scope (everyone) and authorization (moderators). Only the consequences of deletion and the meaning of the token parameter are left implicit.

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 coverage is 50%: the confirm parameter is documented in-schema, but token has no description. The description never explains token directly, though the embedded endpoint path "room/{token}" hints that it is the room/conversation identifier. That partial compensation justifies the baseline 3 rather than a penalty.

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 and resource ("Delete one conversation") with a scope qualifier ("for everyone") that separates it from leaving a conversation or deleting a single message. Among siblings like nextcloud_delete_message and nextcloud_rename_conversation, an agent can immediately tell what this targets.

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?

Adds a real prerequisite ("moderators only"), which tells the agent who may call it, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over adjacent tools such as nextcloud_remove_participant or nextcloud_delete_message. Usage is implied by the resource name rather than explained.

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