telegram_delete_own_message

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explicitly warns 'This is destructive and requires explicit confirmation.' It also clarifies the revocation behavior, providing transparency about the irreversible impact on all chat 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?

The description is concise: two sentences covering function, scope, and destructive nature. No unnecessary words or redundant details.

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?

With no output schema, the description need not cover return values. It includes essential context about own-message restriction and revocation scope, though it omits potential limitations (e.g., message age constraints or errors for non-own messages) that could be relevant but are not strictly required for a delete operation.

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 provides no descriptions for chat_id or message_id, and the description adds no explanatory text. However, the parameter names are self-explanatory in context, and the exclusiveMinimum constraint on message_id provides some guidance, so the lack of compensation is acceptable but not ideal.

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 tool's function: deleting a message previously sent by the authenticated account, and adds the specific effect of revoking it for everyone when Telegram permits. This fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_own_message or send_message.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by specifying that it only works on the authenticated account's own messages and that it is destructive. While it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, the scope and consequence are clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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