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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies an ownership restriction (only messages sent by the authenticated user), but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether other participants are affected, required permissions, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also a symptom of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits confirmation semantics, permission requirements, and return/error behavior that an agent would need before invoking a delete.

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 0%: neither auth_token nor message_id is documented in the schema. The description only hints that auth_token identifies the authenticated user and message_id the target message, adding marginal semantic value without explaining formats, tokens, or constraints.

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 (Supprime) and resource (un message) plus a scope constraint (envoyé par l'utilisateur authentifié), which lets an agent distinguish it from mcp_send_message. It stops short of naming a sibling or clarifying the relationship to other delete tools like mcp_delete_user or mcp_delete_community.

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, and no indication of what happens on failure or when the message id is invalid. The ownership constraint is the only implicit usage hint.

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