chat_delete_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses return values, destructive nature (history and uncommitted spec lost), irreversibility, and that it only removes a file with no network or LLM calls.

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 highly concise and well-structured: purpose, return format, destructive warning, usage guidance, and behavior are each in a short paragraph or bullet, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (success and error), side effects, and when to use. It provides all necessary context for an agent to safely and correctly invoke this delete tool.

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 parameter is well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no new per-parameter details but provides overall context about destructiveness, meeting the baseline for high 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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a conversation session.' It also provides usage context like 'Clean-up after a completed design, or abandoning a dead-end conversation,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like chat_create_session.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (clean-up, abandoning a conversation) and notes that it does not affect deployed infrastructure. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the context is clear.

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