exclude_chats

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses both future filtering and immediate data purging, and notes it works locally without a live LINE session. No behavioral traits are hidden.

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 sentences, each essential: purpose, effects, and operational context. Front-loaded and no redundancy.

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?

Comprehensive for a mutation tool with no output schema, covering what the tool does and its side effects. Minor gap: no mention of return value, but acceptable given the action-oriented nature.

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% with a clear description of parameter. The tool description adds meaning by explaining the consequences of passing chat IDs (skip and purge), going beyond schema details.

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 states it adds conversations to a privacy denylist, with explicit effects (skipping future auto-collect and purging existing data). It distinguishes from siblings like include_chats and list_excluded_chats by describing the dual action.

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 implies usage for privacy exclusion of chats, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context 'a real privacy action' and sibling names suggest reversal with include_chats.

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