teams_delete_message

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds two genuine behavioral facts beyond them: the operation is restricted to the user's own messages, and the result appears as a deleted tombstone in the chat rather than vanishing. It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent or affects other participants.

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 short sentences with no waste; the action and its visible outcome come first, and the safety gate follows. Everything present earns its place.

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 destructive mutation the description covers the outcome and the confirmation gate, and annotations cover the safety profile. It leaves open whether the delete is permanent, whether other participants lose the message, and what permissions or errors apply, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the burden, and it says nothing about conversationId or messageId. The names are largely self-explanatory, which limits the damage, but no format, source, or example is offered.

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) and resource (one of the signed-in user's own messages), plus a scope constraint that distinguishes it from edit_message and send_message siblings. The parenthetical clarifies the visible outcome.

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?

'Only when the user explicitly asked' is an explicit gating condition that tells the agent when this tool must not be used without confirmation, which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't name an alternative tool, but none is required for a delete.

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