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

Annotations declare the mutation/destructive profile, and the description goes well beyond them: it reveals the intent-based two-phase design, that nothing happens until signing/submitting, that the operation is irreversible, and that the first call returns a confirm_token required for the second call. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs to avoid an unintended deletion.

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 tight sentences: the action first, then the write/intent workflow, then the irreversibility and confirm_token requirement. No filler and the riskiest fact is not buried.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the safety prerequisite (signing), the two-step confirmation, and irreversibility, while annotations cover the read/write profile. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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%, so signer, message_id_to_delete and confirm_token are already documented in the schema, including the 0x-prefixed byte format. The description reinforces the confirm_token round trip but adds no parameter-level detail the schema lacks, 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 and resource with scope baked in ('Delete one private message you sent'), which cleanly separates it from geode_messaging_delete_all_messages_to_account, geode_messaging_delete_single_message_to_group, and geode_messaging_delete_single_message_to_list without opening any 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?

Gives clear workflow context — this only prepares an intent, and the agent must then sign with geode-local-signer and submit with geode_submit_intent. It also implies the two-call confirmation flow. It does not explicitly contrast against the delete-all sibling, but the 'one message' scoping makes the choice mostly unambiguous.

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