Delete Unprocessed Message

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, so the description's "This cannot be undone" mostly reinforces what the annotation declares rather than adding new information. It does add the behavioral note that the message is discarded without being replayed, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior, or whether the message must be in a particular state.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place: the irreversible effect is front-loaded and the no-replay scope follows immediately. No filler wording.

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 single-parameter delete with no output schema and a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the essential action and its irreversibility. Minor gaps remain around error conditions and whether any response value is returned, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself documenting message_id as "The ID of the message to discard." The description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema already covers it fully.

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 gives a specific verb+resource combination ("Discard a parked message") and adds the qualifier "without replaying it," which implicitly separates it from the sibling retry_unprocessed_message. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is clear but indirect.

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 phrase "without replaying it" hints at the choice between discarding versus retrying, which is enough to imply usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over retry_unprocessed_message, nor any preconditions such as the message needing to be in an unprocessed state.

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