delete_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('deletes a message') without explaining critical traits: whether this is destructive (likely yes, but not confirmed), permission requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success/failure. This leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral aspects.

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 phrase ('Supprime un message') that is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loading of key information and doesn't efficiently convey purpose or usage in a structured way, leaving too much unsaid for a destructive operation.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address critical context: what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages), permission requirements, or how it interacts with sibling tools. This leaves the agent with inadequate information to use the tool safely and effectively.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (channelId, messageId, reason). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Supprime un message' (Deletes a message) is a tautology that restates the tool name 'delete_message' without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete_channel' or 'delete_role' in the sibling list, nor does it clarify what type of message (e.g., Discord message) is being deleted.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'edit_message' for modification instead of deletion.

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