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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to prove this is destructive. It reinforces deletion and adds a user-request-only caution, but it does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, or what exactly will be removed.

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?

The description is two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concise usage warning.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description establishes the action and a basic safety guardrail. It remains incomplete because it does not explain the message_id parameter, whether deletion is permanent, or what side effects to expect.

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 only 50%: app_id is documented as coming from list_apps, but message_id has no schema description. The tool description mentions no parameters and does not compensate by explaining that message_id is the template identifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes a message template.' This distinguishes it from sibling delete_command and delete_event_listener. However, the tool name 'delete_message' could suggest deleting messages rather than templates, and the description does not explicitly clarify that distinction against message-oriented siblings like update_message or list_messages.

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?

'Only do this when the user asked for it' provides a clear guardrail for a destructive operation. It does not mention alternatives such as updating or disabling the template, nor does it specify conditions under which deletion should be avoided beyond requiring user intent.

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