delete_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the permission gate, the two classes of protected statuses that will cause failure, and that this is a destructive DELETE on a specific resource path. It stops short of describing the failure/response payload, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the permission requirement. The trailing endpoint path and tag line are mildly boilerplate but add routing context, and there is no filler prose.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted, what cannot be deleted, and the required permission. Only the behavior on failure or the expected response is unaddressed.

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 100% for the single `id` path parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description only repeats the path template form `{id}` and adds no meaning about the identifier's format or where to obtain it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete Conversation Status"), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as update_status or create_status, but the resource is narrow enough that an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 gives clear preconditions for use: default statuses and in-use statuses cannot be deleted, and the `status:manage` permission is required. What is missing is explicit routing to an alternative (e.g., update_status for renaming or archiving instead of deleting) when deletion is blocked.

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