Excluir conversa com a IA

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the blast radius (the conversation plus its entire history is removed) and the confirm gate, both of which are behavioral facts the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope stated first and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this covers what matters: what is destroyed, that history goes with it, and the confirm requirement. Minor gaps remain around whether the deletion is reversible and what happens when the id does not exist, but annotations and the small surface keep these low-stakes.

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 0%, so the schema supplies only a UUID pattern and a bare boolean. The description compensates for the confirm parameter by stating it must be true, which is meaning the schema does not encode, but it says nothing about the required `id` beyond the tool name implying which chat is targeted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Exclui uma conversa") and narrows the scope by naming what goes with it ("e seu histórico"), which distinguishes it from read siblings such as get_ai_chat and list_ai_chats. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative or contrasting a soft-delete sibling, but the action and target are 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 gives one explicit precondition, "Exige `confirm: true`", which tells the agent the call will not succeed without that flag. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this over other removal tools (e.g. delete_attachment) or what conditions make deletion appropriate, so usage is only implied by the verb.

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