interactions_delete_original_response

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

Beyond annotations (which already indicate destructiveness), the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'DESTRUCTIVE - IRREVERSIBLE', auth requirements ('token-secured NO bot token'), return value, and the explicit confirmation gate ('Pass __confirm:true AND MCP_DRY_RUN=false to actually delete'). This thoroughly explains the tool's side effects and safeguards, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 and well-structured: purpose first, then a prominent destructive warning, followed by auth, return, and confirmation instructions. Every line adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool, the description covers all essential context: what it does, its irreversibility, security requirements, return value, and the exact conditions to execute. The confirm/dry-run mechanism is fully explained, making the tool safe to invoke correctly even without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions __confirm and MCP_DRY_RUN, but these are already explained in the schema, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states 'Delete the original interaction response message' with a precise verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like interactions_get_original_response, interactions_edit_original_response, and interactions_delete_followup. This is exactly what a purpose statement should do.

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 purpose clearly conveys when to use this tool (deleting the original interaction response), and the destructive label provides implicit caution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no confusion arises given the sibling names and the specific resource mentioned.

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