chats_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real beyond-annotation context: that this is a SOFT delete and that it 'reaches other people on the platform, deletes, or redirects data', which is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs. It stops short of saying whether the chat is recoverable or what happens to its messages.

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?

Front-loads the verb+resource, which is good, but the middle sentence reads as generic injected caution text rather than tool-specific instruction, and the endpoint/path parenthetical is metadata of limited use to an agent. Small overall, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the safety framing and side effects, and annotations cover the rest. It omits permissions/auth requirements, recoverability, and the fate of nested messages, which an agent deciding to call a delete would benefit from.

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?

Only one parameter exists (chatId) and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for it. The description says nothing about chatId's format or meaning; the only hint is the example value inside the schema. With a required, undocumented parameter this is a clear gap.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Soft-delete a chat'), and the 'Soft-' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from a hard delete or from chats_archive. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a precondition (warn the user and get confirmation first), which is genuine usage guidance, but never says when to prefer this over siblings like chats_archive or chats_update, nor when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than laid out.

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