Delete a conversation

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

Annotations already mark the operation destructive, but the description adds important behavioral context: 'This cannot be undone' and that the conversation history is deleted. The confirmation requirement is extra safety guidance beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, scope, and target; the second delivers the critical irreversibility warning. Both sentences earn their place and are front-loaded.

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 deletion tool with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what is deleted, for whom, and the irreversible nature. No additional behavioral details are needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, conversation_id, and the schema describes it with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'direct-message conversation' adds minor context but does not materially enhance the schema's 'Conversation id' description, so it stays at 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a direct-message conversation and its history for the authenticated account.' The phrase 'direct-message conversation and its history' distinguishes it from the sibling delete_direct_message and other delete tools, so an agent can identify the correct target.

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 implies the tool should be called when the user wants to remove an entire DM conversation, and it adds a clear precondition: 'confirm with the user before calling.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like delete_direct_message or mention cases where this tool should not be used.

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