draft_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that deletion is 'for everyone' and requires 'the owner confirms the card,' revealing the interactive confirmation flow. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like irreversible deletion or whether deletion is permanent, which would be valuable for a destructive mutation operation.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides conditional guidance for replacement. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy with the schema, maintaining high information density with minimal length.

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 that an output schema exists and sibling context is rich, the description is fairly complete. It covers the main action, the confirmation step, and replacement alternatives. However, it omits details about the expected output (e.g., the card format) and any error conditions (e.g., if message is not found), which is a minor gap for a tool with a mutation workflow.

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 clarify the parameters. It does not mention chat_id or msg_id beyond implying they identify the message, and reason is entirely undocumented. The description adds minimal semantic value, merely implying the target message without explaining how to specify it or the purpose of the reason field.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Propose deleting one of the OWNER'S OWN messages.' It specifies the action (propose deletion), the resource (a message), and the subject (the owner's own messages). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning draft_message and draft_edit as alternatives for replacement.

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 provides clear context for use: when deleting the owner's own message and after confirmation. It gives explicit guidance for replacement scenarios, naming alternatives ('also call draft_message' or 'prefer draft_edit'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for others' messages) or mention prerequisites like permissions.

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