plu_delete_conversation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'delete/trash' and the need for user confirmation, but does not detail irreversibility, permissions required, rate limits, or other side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the full impact.

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 concise with two sentences, no fluff, and the warning is prominently placed. The structure is effective for a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, the description should cover return values, prerequisites, and side effects. It lacks all of these, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no information about the chatId parameter beyond the schema's type and requirement, leaving the agent without guidance on how to obtain or format the ID.

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 action (Delete/trash) and resource (conversation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_message or delete_availability. However, it doesn't clarify the difference between 'delete' and 'trash'.

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 includes an important usage guideline: 'ask user confirmation.' This implies the tool is destructive and should be used with caution. However, it does not provide explicit context on when to use versus alternatives like delete_message.

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