delete_conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deletion cascades to all messages and is visible to everyone, and it requires moderator rights. It stops short of saying whether the delete is permanent or recoverable (e.g. via trash), which is the one behavioral detail left open.

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 critical constraints are front-loaded in the first three sentences with zero filler. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' block is mild boilerplate, especially since an output schema exists, but it is short and not harmful.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers purpose, authorization, cascade scope, the key exclusion, and the fallback tool. An output schema exists, so the brief 'Confirmation message' note is sufficient and nothing an agent needs is missing.

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% and the single parameter is a bare string named 'Token'. The description compensates by identifying it as 'The conversation token', disambiguating it from other token-bearing siblings. It adds no format or source detail beyond that, but for one parameter this is adequate.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Delete a conversation with all its messages') plus the blast radius ('for everyone'). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling by naming leave_conversation as the path for one-to-one conversations.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite ('Needs moderator rights'), the exclusion ('One-to-one conversations cannot be deleted'), and the alternative to use instead ('leave them with leave_conversation'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure that fully routes an agent.

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