delete_dialogs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: for supergroups it performs leave+delete, for PMs it clears history with optional revoke also affecting the other party, and it discloses FloodWait retry behavior with sleeping and a maximum total wait. This is meaningful, non-obvious behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond the annotation metadata.

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 concise one-line summary followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff. It is front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 covers the key complexities: batch operation, dialog-type-specific behavior, revoke semantics, and flood wait handling. It is complete enough for a destructive tool with an output schema, though it does not mention prerequisites or explicitly name sibling tools, and the undocumented ctx parameter is a minor omission.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds. It explains chat_ids as a list of int/str dialog IDs, revoke as PM-only deletion on the other side, auto_floodwait_retry as sleeping on FloodWait, and max_total_wait_seconds as the total sleep cap. The only gap is the ctx parameter, which is present in the schema but not mentioned in the description.

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 opens with 'Удалить N диалогов одним MCP-вызовом' (Delete N dialogs in one MCP call), which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It further distinguishes between supergroups (leave + delete dialog) and PMs (clear history), clearly separating it from siblings like delete_dialog and leave_chats.

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 provides clear behavioral context for when to use the tool: batch deleting multiple dialogs in a single call, with special handling depending on dialog type. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., delete_dialog for a single dialog, leave_chats to only leave), so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not guidance needed for a 5.

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