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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description usefully adds that the operation is irreversible and that the deleted message is returned, plus the underlying endpoint, but it says nothing about failure modes (e.g. attempting to delete a visitor message) beyond the exclusion.

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 short sentences, with the WRITE, IRREVERSIBLE warning front-loaded before the operation and the scope restriction. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers effect, reversibility, scope restriction and return value. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further context.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents message_id as the Chatra message id and its source. The description adds only the path template DELETE /messages/{id}, which confirms it is a path parameter but adds no new semantics.

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 (an agent message) and scopes it to the conversation, which implicitly separates it from the pushed-message siblings. It never names chatra_delete_pushed_message or chatra_edit_message explicitly, so an agent must infer which of the delete/edit variants applies.

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 a hard exclusion — only agents' messages can be deleted, not visitors' — which prevents the most likely misuse. It does not name a fallback tool when the target is a visitor message or a pushed message, leaving the agent to search siblings.

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