delete_ephemeral_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit for adding a non-obvious delivery caveat — deletion is not guaranteed if the recipient is offline — which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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 with zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the caveat follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with annotations and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: the action, the API baseline, and the key reliability caveat are all present. It could go further by stating whether the bot must be the original sender and whether the deletion is reversible, but the gaps are minor.

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 67%, with chat_id and receiver_user_id documented but ephemeral_message_id bare. The description adds no parameter meaning, and the semantics of receiver_user_id in a deletion context (does it scope delivery or authorization?) are left unstated. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the mostly-covered schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource, 'Delete an ephemeral message', which is clearly separable from sibling delete_message, delete_messages, and the edit_ephemeral_message_* family. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with delete_message, but the resource qualifier 'ephemeral' does the distinguishing work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent is left to infer that this applies only to ephemeral messages and that delete_message covers the ordinary case; neither is stated. The API version reference is context, not usage guidance.

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