chat_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that files on disk outside the chat store are not deleted, which is useful, and hints that 'Late' will wait for approval. However, 'Late' is unexplained, and the approval-waiting behavior is ambiguous – it does not clarify when it applies, what the approval flow looks like, or what the result is if approval is denied. Key behavioral aspects like reversibility and side effects on the chat thread are missing.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, which is good. However, the sentence 'Late will wait for Approve.' is cryptic and disrupts the overall clarity. The scope boundary sentence is clear but the approval-related sentence needs expansion or rewording to be genuinely useful.

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?

This is a destructive/mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line parameter schema. The description covers the file-system boundary but does not describe what 'wait for Approve' means, how an agent observes the approval outcome, or what the return/result of the deletion call looks like. It also doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., whether the thread must exist, or whether approval is always required or only for certain thread types).

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already states that thread_id is a 'Chat thread id from chat_send or chat_list'. The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The phrase 'by id' in the description simply restates what the parameter name implies.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('persisted GUI/MCP chat thread'), and the identifying method ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chat_send, chat_list, and chat_get. The scope boundary about not deleting files outside the chat store further reinforces the precise purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like chat_approve or chat_get. The phrase 'Late will wait for Approve' hints at an approval interaction, but it is too cryptic to serve as practical guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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