Chat Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the two traits that matter most for a destructive tool: the deletion is permanent and a confirmation step is required. It does not say whether existing saved notes or exports are affected, whether the operation is recoverable in any way, or whether it errors on a notebook with no chats, which keeps it below a 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the confirmation prerequisite. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 needn't be explained, and both parameters are fully documented. The description covers scope, permanence, and the confirmation requirement. What remains unaddressed is the blast radius beyond chat history (saved notes, artifacts) and behavior on an empty notebook.

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 both parameters are already documented, and the schema itself states the 'Must be True after user approval' constraint on confirm. The description's 'Requires confirmation' sentence largely restates that rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with scope: 'Permanently delete all chat history for a notebook.' The word 'all' clarifies this is bulk deletion rather than a single-chat operation, which is the key distinction from chat_get/chat_list. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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?

'Requires confirmation' is the only usage signal, and it describes a prerequisite rather than when to choose this over chat_export or chat_save_to_note. There is no statement of when-not to use it, no mention of the notebook-scoping tradeoff, and no guidance for an agent whose request is ambiguous about deleting all chats versus one conversation.

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