Eliminar una conversación

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known structurally. The description contributes non-obvious behavior beyond that: deletion cascades to all messages, it is irreversible, and explicit human confirmation must be obtained first — exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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, front-loaded with a scope tag and the irreversibility warning before the instruction. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries actionable 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?

For a simple three-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, cascade effect, and the confirmation precondition. No essential information an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is already 100% (classroom_id='Aula', thread_id='Conversación', confirm const true), so the schema carries the field definitions. The description still adds meaning by tying the confirm flag to a human-in-the-loop requirement ('pide confirmación explícita a la persona'), clarifying that the boolean is a consent gate rather than a technical flag.

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: 'Elimina una conversación del aula con todos sus mensajes', which tells the agent it removes a chat thread plus its contents. It does not name a sibling such as set_chat_status (closing rather than deleting), so the boundary with the nearest alternative is left implicit.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than spelled out: the tool is for removing a classroom conversation entirely, and the description mandates asking the person for explicit confirmation before calling. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against set_chat_status/reply_chat, and required role or permissions are only hinted at by the 'Equipo del aula' tag.

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