messages_bulk_delete

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes much further: it declares 'IRREVERSIBLE', mentions the 400 rejection for old messages, and discloses the `ConfirmRequired` precondition plus the `MCP_DRY_RUN=false` requirement. This enriches the safety profile well beyond the structured annotations.

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 uses bolded section headers and bullet points, front-loads the purpose, and each sentence provides unique value (purpose, when/when-not, example, return shape, security). Despite its length, it is tightly organized and easy to scan.

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 bulk operation with a security gate, the description covers everything needed: use cases, exclusions, age limits, example invocation, return format, and required confirmation. The provided output schema and annotations are supplemented, not repeated, making this fully self-contained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description includes an example with `channel_id` and `message_ids` and reiterates the 2-100 range, but this adds little beyond the already-complete property descriptions in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Bulk-delete 2-100 messages from a channel') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling `messages_delete` for single messages. It clearly states the batch scope and the channel context, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 'When to use' section gives concrete scenarios (spam/raid sweep, post-incident cleanup), while 'When NOT to use' explicitly names the alternative tool (`messages_delete`) and a hard constraint (Discord rejects >14 days). This is exemplary guidance for tool selection.

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