Delete thread

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

While annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), the description adds essential behavioral details: the first call changes nothing, returns a preview and confirm_token, and only the second call deletes. It also notes that messages are deleted alongside the thread.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. It is a model of conciseness.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of an output schema, the description covers the workflow, safety, and an alternative. It falls slightly short by not naming the archiving tool or detailing the preview contents, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by explaining the crucial confirm_token parameter and the two-call workflow. However, the dry_run and reason parameters remain unexplained, and the description does not explicitly map dry_run to the preview behavior.

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 starts with 'Delete a thread and its messages,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_channel or delete_message.

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 explains exactly when to use this tool (permanent deletion) and when not (archiving as a reversible alternative). It also provides critical procedural guidance about the two-step confirmation flow, making it highly actionable.

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