st.chat.message.delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete') and the confirm requirement, but does not state what happens to transcript indices after deletion, whether the action is reversible, or whether snapshotLabel is used to snapshot state before deletion. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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 sentences, no filler. The essential action, target, and safety requirement are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete. It lacks details about which parameters are required for identifying the message (avatar and fileName are required but unexplained), how index behavior changes after deletion, the role of force, and what happens to snapshots. The agent would need to infer too much.

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%, and the six parameters are undocumented. The description adds meaning for two parameters: index ('zero-based transcript index') and confirm ('requires confirm: true'). However, it leaves avatar, fileName, force, and snapshotLabel unexplained, which is a notable gap given no schema descriptions exist.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('one existing chat message'), plus the disambiguating mechanism ('zero-based transcript index'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like st.chat.message.edit and st.chat.message.append.

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?

The description implies usage: it deletes one message by transcript index, and explicitly requires confirm: true, which conveys a safety gate. It does not explicitly contrast with st.chat.message.edit or explain when deletion is preferred over editing, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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