Recall a message

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the destructive action ('deletes'), but it omits important behavioral details such as irreversibility, permissions, recipient-visible effects, or whether recall differs from a plain delete.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is no redundant wording 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?

Although the tool is simple, the description does not cover parameter semantics, preconditions, or expected behavior beyond the basic action. With no annotations and no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying 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 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'conversationUrn' and 'messageId' are left entirely undocumented, and the description only identifies the general resource without mapping it to the parameters.

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 uses a specific action ('Recalls (deletes)') and a clear resource ('a message you sent'). The qualifier 'you sent' differentiates this from deleting posts or reacting to messages, making it distinguishable from siblings like delete_post and react_to_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 implies usage context by specifying 'a message you sent', which explains when the tool applies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar actions, leaving this to inference.

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