delete_message

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that a message is destroyed and that the inbox is not, which is useful scope awareness. However, it does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether any other state changes occur, or whether any permissions or side conditions apply.

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?

One tight sentence contains action, target, identification key, and scope exclusion. The parenthetical adds meaningful disambiguation without slowing down the reader. No filler or stylistic clutter.

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 simple delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and scope, but it leaves parameter semantics incomplete and never connects the sibling tools context. The core operation is understandable, yet an agent may still guess about address and side effects.

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 description does not compensate. 'By its id' presumably maps to message_id, but the address parameter is entirely unexplained. The agent gets no help understanding what address means or how it relates to the inbox, leaving a required parameter ambiguous.

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 action ('Delete'), a specific resource ('a single message in an inbox'), and an identifying mechanism ('by its id'). The parenthetical '(the inbox itself stays)' actively differentiates this tool from delete_inbox and burn_inbox, making purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use it by describing a single-message deletion scope, and the parenthetical clarifies what it does not do, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent would not know whether to choose this over related sibling tools such as mark_read or delete_inbox from the description alone.

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