delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive tool. It hints at a cascade ('and its native agent session') but never says whether the delete is permanent or reversible, whether elevation/permission is required, or what happens when the session is 'archived' or 'unsupported'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first. The trailing parenthetical is the only part that does not clearly earn its place because its meaning is not resolvable from the text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a destructive single-target tool with zero annotations, the description leaves out irreversibility, the distinction from 'close', and failure behavior, which an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully at 100% coverage ('Session id returned by open'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource (delete a session), and adds that the native agent session goes with it. But it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'close', which for an agent could look like the same intent, and the parenthetical '(deleted / archived / unsupported)' is cryptic enough that the actual effect is unclear.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus 'close' or 'cancel', which are the obvious alternatives in the sibling list. No prerequisites, no confirmation guidance for a destructive operation.

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