delete_dialog

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the dual behavior (leave vs delete) and the revoke parameter's effect, noting that deleting for the other side only works in PMs. This enhances the destructiveHint annotation, which already signals mutability. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise, with one sentence stating the core purpose and a short args block explaining revoke. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the action.

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?

The description is adequate for a destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, but it lacks clarity on how to choose this tool against similar siblings (leave_chat, delete_dialogs). It also doesn't mention potential side effects, reversibility, or whether the chat parameter accepts IDs or usernames, though the schema partially covers the latter.

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 description provides meaningful semantics for the revoke parameter ('True — удалить переписку и у собеседника (только PM)' i.e., delete correspondence for the other side, only in PMs). However, the required chat parameter is not explained at all beyond the schema's generic 'Chat' title, leaving a gap for the required argument with 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Покинуть чат/канал или удалить личный диалог' (leave chat/channel or delete personal dialog). It names specific actions and resources, distinguishing between two modes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like leave_chat, so it lacks sibling-based differentiation.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as leave_chat, delete_dialogs, or archive_dialog. The overlap between 'leave chat/channel' and the sibling leave_chat tool creates ambiguity, and no exclusions or preferred-use cases are mentioned.

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