deleteMessages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add value: the partial-failure behavior (missing messages are skipped) and the return value are both stated. However, for a destructive batch operation it omits permanence/irreversibility and permission requirements (e.g., bots can only delete their own messages in groups), which a no-annotation tool should disclose.

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, each earning its place: the action, the partial-failure behavior, and the return value. The primary action is front-loaded and there is zero redundant wording.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus rich schema is nearly complete: behavior, partial failure, and return value are covered, and the schema supplies parameter details and points to deleteMessage for deletion limitations. It falls just short of exhaustive because error semantics on total failure (e.g., invalid chat_id) and irreversibility are not stated.

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%: chat_id documents the identifier/channel-username forms and message_ids documents the 1-100 JSON-serialized list plus a cross-reference to deleteMessage limitations. The description adds a genuine semantic bonus by clarifying that message_ids may reference non-existent messages without causing failure, since they are skipped.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete'), resource (messages), and scope ('multiple... simultaneously'), which directly distinguishes it from the singular sibling deleteMessage. An agent can identify this as the batch deletion variant without opening the schema.

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 makes the batch use case explicit ('Delete multiple messages simultaneously'), and the skip-on-missing note tells agents they can pass a set of IDs without pre-validating them. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, though the schema's reference to 'See deleteMessage for limitations' partially covers the single-message path.

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