delete_message

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals the destructive nature, and the description's verb 'delete' reinforces this without contradiction. The description adds 'where permitted,' which subtly hints at permission checks but does not elaborate on side effects, permanence, or failure modes. Since annotations cover the primary risk, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and object, making it highly scannable. No unnecessary details or filler are present.

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 the simplicity of the operation, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks context about potential errors, return values, or permission requirements beyond the vague 'where permitted.' It does not explain what happens if the message does not exist or if the user lacks permission. For a destructive action, a bit more context would improve completeness, but the core function is conveyed.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for channel_id or message_id, and the tool description does not explain their meaning or relationship. Although the parameter names are intuitive, the description adds no value beyond the schema. There is no mention of required formats, constraints, or how the parameters interact.

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 action (delete) and the target (a message), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinguished from sibling tools like delete_channel by specifying 'message' as the resource. The phrase 'where permitted' adds a minor caveat but does not obscure the core function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as edit_message or delete_channel. It does not mention prerequisites, edge cases, or situations where deletion might be disallowed. There is no explicit indication of when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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