Delete a message

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses permanence, irreversibility, thread deletion behavior, the fact that force only works with app authentication, and the empty-object success response. It also explains that PERMISSION_DENIED is a permission rule rather than a missing scope, which is valuable diagnostic context.

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 information-dense but well organized: core action first, then permissions, then failure modes, then warnings, then return value. Every sentence earns its place, and critical caveats like irreversibility and force-auth restriction are explicitly surfaced.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers authorization contexts, error conditions, the force edge case, irreversibility, a pre-deletion safety step, and the success return value. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The main description largely restates the parameter semantics already present in the schema, such as the message name source and the force authentication constraint, without adding meaningfully new parameter-level detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Permanently deletes a message'—and immediately clarifies scope by distinguishing own messages from space-manager deletions. This makes the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_message, send_message, and update_message.

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?

The description gives explicit operating conditions: user vs. manager permissions, PERMISSION_DENIED vs. FAILED_PRECONDITION, and when force=true is valid. It also instructs the agent to read with get_message before deleting if content matters. It does not explicitly mention update_message as the non-destructive alternative, which keeps it just short of a perfect score.

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