wipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive scope (session + mirror + media), which is valuable, but it omits irreversibility, whether confirmation is required, or whether it affects server-side or local data only.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the destructive verb, no 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?

For a destructive, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool, the description is adequate but thin. It should mention irreversibility and possibly auth/permission requirements given the severity of the operation.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no parameterization – it operates on 'the current account' implicitly, which is useful 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource set (session, mirror, media of the current account), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete' (generic message delete) and 'logout' (session termination only). It's clear what it destroys, though 'mirror' is jargon an agent may not disambiguate without domain knowledge.

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 is implied by the destructive language and the sibling 'logout', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or warning against using it casually. With 'delete', 'logout', and 'wipe' all present, some routing guidance would help.

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