@deva-me/mcp-server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a deletion action and cost implications, but it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects (e.g., impact on threads), rate limits, or response format. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, though the parenthetical note about cost adds minor complexity. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, but could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical behavioral context (e.g., confirmation prompts, error handling) and doesn't explain return values or failure modes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 the single parameter 'message_id' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples or sourcing guidance), so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('message by id'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deva_storage_file_delete' or 'deva_storage_kv_delete', which also perform deletions but on different resources.

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 includes a hint about checking 'catalog/estimate for current charge', which implies cost considerations, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of sibling tools like 'deva_messaging_mark_read' for non-destructive actions). No clear when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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