delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that this is a soft delete (content replaced with a placeholder), that attachments are unlinked as a side effect, and that ownership/role and a specific permission gate the call. It stops short of saying whether the operation is recoverable or what happens on permission failure, which is the main remaining gap.

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 core sentences are front-loaded and information-dense, but the definition spends lines on a repeated title ('Delete Message' / 'Deletes a private note'), a raw DELETE endpoint that merely restates the schema path, and a 'Tags: Conversations' footer. Those elements are structural filler rather than guidance an agent can act on.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important unknowns: permission gate, role-based ownership rules, and the concrete effect on content and attachments. Only reversibility and result/response expectations remain unspecified, which is a minor omission at this complexity.

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 100%, so both `cuuid` and `uuid` are already documented as conversation/message path parameters. The description adds no extra constraints, formats, or examples beyond what the path template and schema convey, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a private note') and adds concrete semantics: content replaced with a placeholder, attachments unlinked. The only wrinkle is the name/description mismatch (delete_message vs. 'private note'), which slightly muddies what exactly is removed, and there is no explicit differentiation from other delete_* siblings such as delete_contact_note.

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?

It states clear preconditions for use: agents may delete only their own notes, Admin-role agents may delete any note, and the `messages:write_private` permission is required. It does not spell out when an agent should prefer a different operation (e.g., editing instead of deleting), so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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