撤回消息

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description supplements this by identifying exactly what is affected (the recalled message) and the authorization precondition. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that leads with the action and resource and then gives the eligibility condition. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description covers what is deleted, the key needed, and the permission boundary. The absence of an output schema is not a gap here because the operation's effect and precondition are fully specified.

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% and message_id is already described as 消息ID. The description only repeats that the operation is keyed by message_id, adding no additional format, type, or constraint information.

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 concrete action (撤回) applied to a specific resource (a message identified by message_id) and adds a scope/eligibility condition (own message or admin permission). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling get/send/set 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?

It states precisely when the tool can be used: only for messages sent by the caller or messages the caller has permission to manage. This implies the main exclusion (other users' messages without admin rights), though it does not name alternative tools.

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