context_expire

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the return value for both success and failure (expired: true/false) and states the scope limitation (cannot expire another app's context). This gives clear expectations for side effects and access control.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action (delete). It efficiently communicates purpose, return behavior, and scope without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the simple destructive nature, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, return values, and permissions. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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 schema provides only parameter names and types, but the description adds meaning by explaining that 'app_id' is the scope and 'key' identifies the context. It clarifies the relationship between the two parameters, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 deletes a saved context immediately, ahead of any TTL. It distinguishes itself from context_get (read) and context_save (write) by explicitly focusing on deletion/expiration.

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 indicates when to use it (to delete a context before its natural expiration) and sets a constraint (scoped to your app_id). It does not explicitly list alternatives, but the phrase 'ahead of any TTL' and the existence of context_save/context_get provide sufficient context for use cases.

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