remove_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates removal and the runtime-added scope, but says nothing about permanence, effects on access or stored configuration, authorization needs, or behavior when the chat is unknown or was not added at runtime.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the operation and efficiently includes both accepted identifier forms and the runtime scope. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, this is enough for basic selection and invocation. However, the lack of annotations makes the missing destructive-behavior and error-handling context more consequential.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description meaningfully compensates by stating that the chat argument accepts either an ID or a name. It does not clarify ID formatting or how ambiguous names are resolved.

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 gives a specific verb and resource—removing a chat—and narrows the scope to chats added at runtime. It is readily distinguishable from remove_dir, though it does not explicitly identify add_chat as its counterpart.

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 phrase "that was added at runtime" supplies clear context for when the tool applies. It does not explain what to do for preconfigured chats or name an alternative, but the simple sibling set makes that omission relatively minor.

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