token_bowl_chat_admin_delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, admin-only access, and two specific error conditions (NotFoundError, AuthenticationError). It stops short of describing any return value or side effects on related data, but the core mutation semantics are transparent.

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 front-loaded with the essential scope and action, then efficiently covers usage, parameters, and errors using structured sections. No sentence is wasted and redundancy is minimal.

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 simple one-parameter shape, absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke correctly: admin requirement, irreversibility, and error cases. Return behavior is not described, but for a hard-delete tool that is a minor omission.

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%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the single parameter as the 'Unique identifier of the message to delete', which adds clear semantic meaning. It does not specify format constraints, but for a single string parameter this is adequate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('delete a message'), adds the scope modifier 'permanently', and flags it as '[ADMIN ONLY]'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling admin tools like admin_update_message or admin_get_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?

It gives a clear use case ('remove inappropriate or problematic messages') and constraints (irreversible, admin required). It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context for invocation is unambiguous.

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