deleteBusinessMessages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and uses it well: it discloses the required permission scopes ('can_delete_sent_messages' vs 'can_delete_all_messages') and the success return value. It stops short of mentioning edge cases such as missing messages or deletion age limits, but the core behavioral contract is present.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the subject-action pair is first, followed by permission requirements and return behavior. Every sentence adds operational value.

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, no-nested-schema tool, the description covers authorization, target scope, and return value, and the schema covers parameter constraints. It could be slightly stronger by routing to alternatives or noting partial-failure behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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%, with both business_connection_id and message_ids meaningfully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deletes messages on behalf of a business account.' The 'business account' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like deleteMessage and deleteMessages, which target ordinary chat messages.

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 implies the tool is for business-account message deletion and specifies required permissions, but it does not explicitly contrast it with deleteMessage/deleteMessages or state when not to use it. The usage context is inferable rather than articulated.

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