telegram_delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: deletion is global ("for everyone") and limited to private chats/basic groups. It never states irreversibility, required account/authorization state, or failure behavior for out-of-scope chats, and the truncation removes whatever caveat the final clause contained.

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 core constraint is front-loaded and the sentence is economical, but the text terminates mid-word ("receiv..."), so the structure is broken and a required clause is lost. Concise, but incompletely delivered.

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, zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should fully explain target selection, preconditions, and irreversibility. It instead ends mid-sentence, leaving the most consequential precondition unspecified.

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?

Zero parameters gives a baseline of 4, but that baseline assumes the description compensates for how the target is selected. Here nothing explains how the message to delete is identified (no ID argument and no statement that it acts on the most recent/selected message), which is the single most important semantic for a delete tool.

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 concrete verb+resource ("Deletes ONE message") and narrows scope to messages you sent in a private chat or basic group, which an agent can distinguish from send/read siblings. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is scope-based rather than routing-based.

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?

Useful constraints are embedded (only your own messages, only private chats/basic groups, deletion is for everyone), which implicitly rules out supergroups and channels. But the trailing clause that appears to state a precondition ("only after the receiv...") is cut off, so the key timing/eligibility rule is unusable.

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