delete_own_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavioral traits: it calls chat.delete, returns ok=True, treats message_not_found as soft success, is low-consequence (no destructive cascade), and mentions audit logging. This goes well beyond what the input schema reveals.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action, API details, edge cases, and behavioral context. No filler. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple delete tool, the description covers what the tool does, how it works, edge cases (soft success), and implications. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description already mentions the return value. No gaps given the low complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description clarifies required parameters ('channel, ts') and their role in the underlying API call. The optional 'workspace' parameter is not explained, leaving some ambiguity. The description adds value but not comprehensive param-level detail.

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 starts with 'Delete one of your own messages,' which is a clear verb+resource statement. It is distinct from siblings like update_own_message, send_message, etc., because it focuses on deletion of own messages only.

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 states the tool is for deleting your own messages and mentions token/scopes. It implies low-consequence and no draft+confirm, which helps the agent decide to use it directly. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools like update_own_message or list alternatives.

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