delete_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes permission requirements ('Requires canDelete permission') and ownership constraints ('Can only delete messages sent by you'), which are crucial behavioral traits for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens when 'forEveryone' is set to false.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates essential constraints. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering permission requirements and ownership constraints. However, it doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation, error messages) or the implications of the 'forEveryone' parameter, leaving some 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of 'forEveryone' or how to obtain 'chatId' and 'messageId'). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete a message') with the resource ('message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'get_messages'. It's precise and unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Can only delete messages sent by you') and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires canDelete permission'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools.

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