delete_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'delete' which is inherent from the tool name, and does not disclose irreversibility, whether replies are cascaded, permission requirements, or success/failure behavior. A destructive operation warrants more transparency.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 delete operation, the description captures the core purpose and ownership constraint, but omits details like return behavior or consequences of deletion. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for thread_id ('ID of the thread to delete'), so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema states, so per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete one of your threads' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (threads), and even narrows scope to user's own threads. It distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_thread or get_my_threads because 'delete' is a unique operation among the listed siblings, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives.

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 use when you want to delete one of your threads, but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other tools or any conditions like 'thread must exist' or 'cannot delete others' threads' beyond the implied ownership.

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