Delete Session (v3)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the word 'permanently', which conveys irreversibility beyond the annotation's raw destructive flag. It also clarifies the deletion is by id, which is useful context. However, it does not mention potential cascading effects on related data (e.g., messages, branches), which would have enriched the behavioral picture.

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 is front-loaded with the verb 'delete' and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no filler or repetition. Ideal length for a one-parameter 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?

For a simple delete tool with strong annotations (destructive, idempotent, readOnly=false), the description is adequately complete. It conveys the core action and the resource. It does not explicitly address what happens if the session doesn't exist or whether related data is removed, but the idempotentHint partially covers idempotency, and the absence of an output schema makes return-value documentation unnecessary. Minor gaps around cascading effects keep this from a 5.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing session_id as 'Session id to delete'. The tool description adds 'v3 session by id', but this reuses information already present in the tool name/title and does not provide new semantic details about the parameter (e.g., format, how to obtain a valid v3 session id). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Permanently delete a v3 session by id' clearly identifies a specific action (delete), the resource (v3 session), and the key (by id). It distinguishes itself from the sibling lyzr_session_delete by explicitly noting 'v3', and the title reinforces this. This is a precise, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'by id' and 'v3 session', but does not explicitly state when this tool should be chosen over alternatives like lyzr_session_delete or lyzr_session_update. It provides no contextual conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since the v3 scoping is in the name/title, the description adds little beyond what is already structured.

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