delete_message

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds significant behavioral context: permanence ('there is no undo'), what recipients see ('message was deleted notice'), cache marking, return value, and permission rules. No contradiction with annotations.

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 that front-load the action and consequences, with no filler. Every sentence provides essential information, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (permanent deletion, role-based permissions), the description covers the action, effects, permissions, alternative, and return value. No output schema exists, but return value is described. Annotations provide destructive and idempotent hints. The description is complete for agent decision-making.

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% and each parameter has a detailed description. The description reinforces the usage of sender_jid but does not add new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Revoke (delete-for-everyone) a message' and distinguishes from edit_message by noting use edit_message to correct text. It clearly identifies the verb (revoke/delete), resource (message), and scope (delete-for-everyone).

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 states when to use ('You can only delete your own messages unless you are a group admin') and when not to use by providing an alternative: 'Use edit_message instead when you only want to correct text.' This gives clear context for selection.

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