quire.deleteChat

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds 'This action cannot be undone' reinforcing irreversibility. No additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or side effects are disclosed, but the description is sufficient given the 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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and identification methods; the second adds a critical warning. No unnecessary 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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., success status or deleted object). It also omits prerequisites like ownership or permissions. However, the identification methods are well covered, and the irreversibility is stated.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, but the description adds value by explaining the logical grouping of parameters (OID vs ownerType+ownerId+chatId). This helps the agent choose between the two identification methods, going beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool deletes a chat channel and specifies two identification methods (by OID or by owner type/ID and chat ID). It distinguishes from other delete tools among siblings by explicitly naming the resource as 'chat channel'.

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 explains the two alternative ways to specify the chat channel (OID vs owner+chatId), providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives such as updateChat, though the irreversibility warning is helpful.

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