Delete message

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint true. The description goes beyond by detailing the safe preview/confirm mechanism, dry_run support, and the two-step invocation pattern. This gives the agent full understanding of the tool's behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: first states purpose, second explains safety mechanism, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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?

The description adequately covers key aspects: purpose, safety, dry_run. While there's no output schema, the description implies a preview response. For a mutation tool with destructiveHint, this is sufficient.

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 83% (5/6 params described). The description adds minimal value: it mentions 'Supports dry_run' which the schema doesn't describe for that param, but doesn't elaborate on other parameters. The schema already provides adequate descriptions.

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 'Delete one message' and mentions dry_run, which is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_delete_messages by explaining the two-step flow for preventing accidental deletion. However, the preview/confirm mechanism could be more explicitly stated as the tool's main purpose.

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 explicitly explains the two-step flow: first call returns preview and token, only second call with token actually deletes. It advises using this flow for user approval rather than manual deletion. This provides clear context on when and how to use safely.

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