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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is low; the description nonetheless adds 'IRREVERSIBLE' as an explicit severity callout and discloses the return value ('Returns the deleted message'), which is not in the annotations and no output schema exists. It does not state behavior when the message is already gone, but the added signal is above the annotation baseline.

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?

One compact sentence with the irreversible-write warning front-loaded before the operation itself, so the risk signal is the first thing the agent reads. Every clause adds information; nothing repeats the title.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, no output schema and destructive/idempotent hints already present, the description covers purpose, severity, and return value. The only absent detail is edge-case behavior (deleting an already-deleted or nonexistent message id), which is minor for this tool shape.

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 coverage is 100% for the single message_id parameter, including provenance guidance ('from the reply of a send call or from a webhook'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or origin detail beyond the URL template's {id} placeholder.

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) plus a qualified resource (pushed message, sent earlier), which separates it from the plain chatra_delete_message sibling by resource type. It also names the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with chatra_delete_message, but the resource qualifier does most of that work.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource naming - an agent can infer this is for pushed messages and not, say, chatra_edit_pushed_message, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative is named. The 'sent earlier' phrasing hints at scope but is not guidance.

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