delete_discussion

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses the ownership restriction, the conditional refusal, and the rationale that conversations never disappear out from under participants. It could add return-shape details, but the safety-critical behavior is clearly exposed.

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 compact, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second packs both guards and the underlying reason into a single coherent statement.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it defines what is deleted, who can delete it, when deletion is blocked, and why. Nothing essential is missing for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter context by linking token ownership to discussion_id: the token must belong to the identity that created the discussion. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 the exact action and resource ('Delete a discussion') and narrows scope with 'you created through the API'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_discussion and delete_post without needing to compare schemas.

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?

Gives strong usage context: the tool only works on discussions the caller created and refuses deletion once other voices have responded. This tells an agent when a call will succeed or fail, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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