Delete a chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it specifies the deletion target (linked devices), clarifies that wuapi-stored messages survive and remain readable via list_messages, and warns that the action cannot be undone on devices. This enriches the safety profile, though auth requirements or error behavior are not covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence delivers high-value consequences (stored messages retained, irreversibility) with zero waste.

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 chat-deletion tool with rich annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the critical behavioral nuance—device vs stored copy and irreversibility—so an agent can call it correctly. It does not route between siblings like archive_chat, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 schema already defines accountId, chatId, confirm, and deleteMedia. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete' and resource 'a chat', specifies the scope 'from the account's linked devices (the phone and WhatsApp Web)', and distinguishes the local wuapi copy by noting messages are kept and readable with list_messages. An agent can tell it apart from delete_message or archive_chat without opening either schema.

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?

No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives are named in the description. It only implies deletion is a device-local operation and that stored messages remain accessible. The schema's confirm parameter carries the consent condition, but the tool description itself lacks usage routing.

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