waha_delete_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a chat entirely, implying a destructive and irreversible action, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on messages or participants). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what 'delete entirely' entails (e.g., permanent removal vs. soft delete), error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (chatId and session). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'chatId' represents or how 'session' affects the operation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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') and target ('a chat entirely'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'waha_clear_chat' or 'waha_archive_chat', which might offer similar but distinct functionality for chat management.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'waha_clear_chat' or 'waha_archive_chat'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or specific scenarios where deletion is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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