delete_discussion

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

Annotations only say destructive/idempotent/not-read-only; the description goes well beyond them by disclosing that this is a SOFT delete, that the discussion leaves every list, that its text is blanked, that nothing is permanently erased, and that a group admin can restore it. That reversibility and side-effect detail is exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and target, then the soft-delete semantics, then the alternative. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect (blanked text, removed from lists), reversibility (admin restore), and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented there ('Discussion id or short key'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description references `id_or_key` but adds no format or lookup detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Discard') and resource ('a discussion') plus the identifier used to target it. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling ('prefer update_discussion' for text mistakes), so an agent can separate delete from update without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (update_discussion) and the condition selecting it (a text mistake), which is real routing guidance. It lacks broader when-not guidance (e.g., delete vs. archive/lock, or confirm-before-delete norms), so it stops short of fully explicit when/when-not coverage.

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