delete_chat

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly marks the action as DESTRUCTIVE and states that confirm=true is required, which is important safety context beyond the bare action. It does not go deeper into irreversibility or side effects such as whether messages are permanently removed, which is why it is not 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?

The definition is a single compact sentence with the most critical safety detail front-loaded in a parenthetical. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 two parameters and destructive confirmation requirement are covered, and the operation is simple. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left without explicit information about what deletion means for the chat, whether it is permanent, or what the unconfirmed warning/return state looks like.

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 description adds little beyond the schema: chat_id is implied by 'Delete a chat,' and confirm's behavior is already documented in the input schema. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate for chat_id's missing schema description, but both parameters are reasonably self-explanatory from their names and context.

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 'Delete a chat' states a specific verb and resource, making the core operation clear and distinguishing it from siblings like delete_message by the object type. However, the wording closely echoes the tool name and does not explicitly contrast with near-alternatives such as archive_chat or leave_chat.

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?

There is no guidance about when to delete a chat versus archiving it, leaving it, or deleting individual messages, despite those alternatives existing in the sibling list. The only usage condition mentioned is the confirm flag, which relates to safety rather than choosing this tool over another.

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