delete_session

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

In the absence of annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it notes the operation is irreversible ('不可逆操作'), details that it cleans up message files, attachments, and working directories, and explains the dry-run vs. actual deletion behavior based on the 'confirm' parameter. This fully informs the agent about side effects and safety.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by consequences and usage advice. While the sentences are somewhat long, every clause provides necessary information without redundancy. It strikes a good balance between detail and conciseness.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, the irreversible impact, the recommended timing, and the dry-run preview behavior. It even mentions what the dry-run lists (files/directories and their sizes). This is complete for a destructive tool with 3 parameters.

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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, including the 'confirm' safety gate. The description adds context about what gets deleted (files, attachments, directories) but does not introduce new parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema. Therefore, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '删除指定的 Chat 对话或 Agent 会话' (Delete the specified Chat conversation or Agent session). It specifies both a concrete verb ('delete') and resource (session types), and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_sessions by focusing on deletion.

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 provides a clear usage context: '建议在 Proma 关闭或切换到其他会话后操作' (recommended after Proma is closed or switched to another session). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the guidance about avoiding conflicts with running processes is useful. Since there are no sibling delete tools, this is sufficient.

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