delete_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the fact that one message is affected. It does not say whether the dismissal is permanent or reversible, whether it requires elevated auth, or whether an unknown ID errors. The word 'dismiss' rather than 'delete' further softens what is likely a destructive operation.

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?

One short sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing needs trimming.

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 tool is simple (one required integer, output schema present so return values need no explanation), and the description covers that much. It still omits the two things an agent actually needs: how to obtain a valid message_id and whether the deletion is irreversible.

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% and the single parameter is typed only as integer, so the description's 'by ID' is the only signal about what message_id means. It does not say where that ID comes from (get_messages) or whether it is the numeric row id or another identifier.

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?

States a specific verb ('Dismiss') and resource ('one diagnostic message') scoped by ID, which clearly separates it from the read-side sibling get_messages. The only wobble is that the tool name says 'delete' while the description says 'dismiss', leaving the permanence of the operation ambiguous.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and never names the sibling (get_messages) that supplies the message_id it requires. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling list.

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