ethora-app-delete-chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the user must be logged-in and have created the app, which adds some context about permissions, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects (e.g., impact on related data), nor does it address rate limits or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool is a mutation (delete operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), error conditions, or what happens post-deletion. For a destructive action, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('appId' and 'chatJid') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete a chat') and the resource ('chat for the logged-in user who has created the app'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ethora-app-delete' or 'ethora-app-create-chat', which would require more specificity for a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance by implying usage is limited to the logged-in user who created the app, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'ethora-app-delete' for deleting apps or other chat-related tools). No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool references are included.

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