delete_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a meaningful side-effect distinction: revoke=true affects all participants, while revoke=false only affects the caller's view. This goes beyond the raw schema and tool name, though it does not mention permission requirements or irreversibility.

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 very short and front-loaded with the action, followed by the key parameter behavior. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema 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?

The core deletion behavior and revoke modes are covered, and since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. However, important operational context is missing: no mention of how to obtain message_ids, whether deletion is limited to the user's own messages, or what permissions are needed for revoke=true. This leaves meaningful gaps for an agent attempting a real deletion.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meaning for revoke, mapping boolean values to concrete behavior, but provides little extra semantics for chat and message_ids; it relies on their self-explanatory names. This is a partial but not complete compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Удалить' makes the core action explicit, and 'сообщения' identifies the resource. The revoke clause adds two distinct modes (delete for everyone vs. only for self), which fully clarifies the purpose without needing sibling differentiation since no other delete tool exists.

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 does not name alternatives, but no deletion sibling is present, so tool selection is unambiguous. It does provide conditional usage guidance for the revoke parameter: use true to delete for everyone and false to delete only from the user's side, which tells the agent how to choose behavior based on intent.

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