interactions_delete_followup

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description adds critical behavioral details: irreversibility, auth specifics (token-secured, no bot token), return payload, and the dry-run/confirmation gate. This provides substantial value beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact, using bold labels for Purpose, Auth, and Returns. Each sentence is purposeful: it covers what the tool does, safety, authorization, and critical execution requirements. No filler or redundancy.

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 a 4-parameter schema and output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, irreversibility, auth, return format, and the confirmation/dry-run mechanism. The presence of an output schema means return-value explanation is not necessary. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke safely.

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 already documents all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for __confirm (requires MCP_DRY_RUN=false) and emphasizes the interaction_token's scoped nature, which goes beyond the schema's field-level 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 description clearly states the action: 'Delete a follow-up message.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making it distinct from sibling tools like messages_delete or interactions_delete_original_response. The destructive and irreversible nature is also highlighted upfront.

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 explicit usage requirements (pass __confirm:true AND MCP_DRY_RUN=false) and auth constraints, which are helpful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to choose this tool over similar deletion tools. The context is clear from the resource name but lacks direct alternative guidance.

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