Delete thread

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing the two-step process: first call returns preview+token, repeat call deletes. This clarifies the safety mechanism beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no redundant information. Every sentence adds essential detail (action, safety mechanism, alternative).

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 a confirmation flow, the description adequately covers the behavioral steps and provides an alternative (archiving). No output schema exists, but the preview+token behavior is described. Missing details like return format or permissions are not critical given the use case.

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 low (40%), but the description indirectly explains the dry_run and confirm_token parameters through the two-step process narrative. However, it does not explicitly detail the reason parameter or provide format constraints beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Delete a thread and its messages') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'Archiving is the reversible alternative.' The verb 'delete' plus resource 'thread' is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Safe to call directly' explains the safe invocation pattern, and 'Archiving is the reversible alternative' advises when to use archiving instead. However, it does not fully elaborate on all alternative tools (e.g., update_thread).

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