Delete message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond restating the tool name plus an endpoint URL — it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether other participants' views are affected, or what happens to reactions/replies on the message. With annotations doing the heavy lifting a 2 is appropriate for a description that contributes no behavioral context.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler or redundancy. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing written is wasted.

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 destructive, three-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is thinner than ideal — it omits permanence, side effects, and any authorization context. The annotations and the one documented parameter cover enough that an agent can technically invoke it correctly, but the definition is minimum viable rather than complete.

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 coverage is only 33% — only `confirm` is documented in the schema, while `token` and `message_id` are bare. The URL template does implicitly reveal that `token` is a conversation token and `message_id` a message identifier, which is modest added meaning, but there is no format, type, or lookup guidance for either required parameter and no explanation of when the confirm flag matters relative to this call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Delete one chat message' — which cleanly separates it from siblings such as nextcloud_delete_conversation, nextcloud_delete_note, or nextcloud_delete_card. The REST path further pins it to the Talk/spreed chat message resource, though the description never names that sibling family explicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites or permission requirements, and no mention of how the `confirm` parameter should be handled. The agent is left to infer everything about invocation context from the schema alone.

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