Удалить диалог

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the entire correspondence is deleted and that restoration is impossible. It also clarifies the behavior of the alternative path (correspondence remains), which helps the agent understand the irreversible side effect.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the irreversible consequence, and the recommended alternative. There is no filler or repetition; the most important behavioral warning is front-loaded.

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 operation with a required confirmation parameter, the description sufficiently explains what is deleted, that deletion cannot be undone, and what to do instead when permanent deletion is not desired. The schema covers parameter semantics and confirmation, so no critical context 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%, so the parameters 'case', 'dialog', and 'confirm_contact' are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline for high schema 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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Удаляет диалог') and specifies the destructive scope ('вместе со всей перепиской'). It also distinguishes itself from dialogs_update by explicitly contrasting permanent deletion with a non-destructive manual-mode alternative.

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 gives concrete guidance on when not to use this tool: if the bot should merely stop replying, the agent should call dialogs_update with mode=operator and ai_enabled=false instead. This explicitly routes to the alternative and explains the trade-off regarding preservation of the conversation.

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