delete_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the deletion is soft and not permanent, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not discuss permissions, idempotency, or what happens to the message after deletion, leaving some gaps.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and then clarify the non-permanence. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and its soft-delete nature. It could mention the outcome or return value, but that is not mandatory given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (messageId described as 'Message ID to delete'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('soft-delete') and the resource ('a message from the authenticated key inbox'), which is distinct from sibling tools like send_message, get_message, and check_inbox. It unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose without tautology.

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 implies the use case (removing a message without permanent deletion) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Since no other delete tool exists among siblings, the context is reasonably clear, but explicit usage guidance is absent.

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