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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — notably it omits whether deletion is irreversible, whether it applies only to messages the caller sent, and what happens on an invalid message ID.

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 words with zero waste and the action is front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — there is no second sentence to earn its place because there is nothing here.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description should say what is destroyed, whether it is recoverable, and what a success response looks like. None of that is present, leaving the annotations and schema to carry the entire burden.

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% across all three required parameters (chat_id, id_message, instance_id), so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description contributes no additional meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 is 'Delete a message', which merely restates the tool name 'whatsapp_delete_message' and its annotation title 'Delete Message'. It names no scope (delete for everyone vs. delete for me only) and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like whatsapp_edit_message or whatsapp_delete_notification.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid instance_id and that the instance be connected), and no exclusions. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.

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