delete_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Delete' and does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether special permissions are required, or what happens to associated content like replies and pins. This is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words or superfluous information. It is appropriately short for a simple operation, though it mostly restates what the tool name already conveys.

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 delete operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the core invocation details are present. However, because there are no annotations, the description should also cover operational context like irreversibility and authorization requirements. It is minimally adequate but leaves behavioral gaps.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters: channel and ts. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies because the description contributes no additional semantic nuance beyond the schema.

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 uses a direct imperative verb and names the exact resource ('Slack message'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like update_message, delete_file, and delete_scheduled_message. Even though brief, it unambiguously states what action is performed on what object.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, such as using delete_scheduled_message for scheduled messages, or any context about when deletion is appropriate. An agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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