Delete a chat thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Permanently delete', 'including its transcript', and 'No undo', which effectively communicates irreversibility and the scope of deletion. It does not mention permissions or error handling, but the destructive nature is clearly disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that leads with the action verb and immediately states the key consequence ('No undo'). Every word contributes value, and it is perfectly sized for a straightforward destructive operation.

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 simplicity of the operation (2 required string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the essential context: what is deleted, the scope, and irreversibility. It does not explain return values or error cases, but for a delete tool without an output schema, this is not a critical omission. It is nearly complete for its complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It partially does by saying 'one chat thread from a project,' implying projectId scopes the project and chatId identifies the thread. However, it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond these implied roles, so it adds only modest value over the schema.

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 uses the strong verb 'delete' with a clear resource ('chat thread'), specifies the exact scope ('from a project'), and includes additional clarity about what is deleted ('including its transcript'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_project and delete_files by naming the chat thread as the target.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate: permanently removing a chat thread. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'from a project' frames the scope. It lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to delete_project/delete_files, so it misses the top score.

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