delete_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a destructive mutation tool, the description gives no indication of side effects (whether deletion is permanent, whether it affects message history for other members, whether there are rate limits or permission requirements). This is a significant gap for a tool designated as destructive by its very name.

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?

A single concise sentence with zero waste. Efficiently conveys the core action without extraneous detail, though the brevity means some behavioral context is sacrificed.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no additional detail beyond a terse one-liner. While an output schema exists (which slightly reduces burden for return-value explanation), the description should address side effects, permission requirements, or permanence of deletion. The tool is simple (2 params) but the destructive nature demands more behavioral disclosure than a bare functional statement.

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%, so both parameters (chat_id and message_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate. The description doesn't clarify formats, limits, or relationships between the two 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 verb (delete) plus a clear resource (message from a chat), which accurately states the function. It is distinct from siblings like send_message and edit_message_text, though the mention of 'from a chat' is somewhat an obvious qualifier for chat tools.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternative deletion approaches, prerequisites (like whether the deleting user must be an admin/member), or cleanup ordering (e.g., must delete before chat is removed). The sibling tools offer no comparable deletion tool, but guidelines could clarify the role of this tool relative to edits or chat management.

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