messages_delete

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by labeling the action IRREVERSIBLE, explaining the ConfirmRequired precondition, describing the DRY_RUN_PREVIEW behavior tied to MCP_DRY_RUN and __confirm, and warning against invoking it based on messages_read output. This is rich, safety-critical disclosure.

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 front-loaded with purpose and destructiveness, then uses compact labeled sections for usage, example, return value, and security. Every sentence adds operational value without padding.

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 single-delete tool, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return shape, and safety gates. The presence of an output schema means return details are not the description's burden, and the security caveats make it complete for an agent to decide and execute.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete JSON example with realistic snowflake IDs and reinforces the __confirm requirement in context, which helps correct invocation beyond the schema's parameter 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 opens with 'Delete a single message from a Discord channel', which uniquely identifies the exact operation, scope, and verb. The 'When NOT to use' section explicitly distinguishes it from messages_bulk_delete, clarifying its position among sibling tools.

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?

It gives clear use cases (removing spam/policy violations, cleaning up stale bot messages) and explicit exclusions (bulk delete with an alternative tool named, audit trail removal). This is the highest level of guidance.

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