delete_thread

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is irreversible ('This cannot be undone') and deletes comments plus the thread, which is critical safety information for a destructive action. It doesn't mention permissions or response values, but the output schema covers response; the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 two sentences plus an Args line; the purpose and risk are stated first, and every word earns its place. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, scope, irreversibility, and parameter source. This is sufficient to invoke correctly and understand consequences. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need to be described.

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 schema only gives thread_id as an integer, leaving 0% coverage, so the description must add semantics. It explains that thread_id is the global thread ID and specifies how to obtain it (list_threads or search_threads), which is valuable beyond the raw schema. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool name and description clearly state it permanently deletes a thread and all its comments, specifying the resource (thread) and action (delete). It differentiates from delete_comment by covering cascading deletion of comments. This is a specific verb+resource description.

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 states the thread_id should come from list_threads or search_threads, giving a clear prerequisite for when to use. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_comment or edit_thread, but the deletion scope ('all its comments') implies when this tool is appropriate. Context is clear enough for selection, though no explicit exclusions.

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