Delete message

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

Despite destructiveHint:true already signaling danger, the description adds crucial behavioral context: the first step does not delete, deletion is irreversible, chat and message_id are revalidated, mismatches are rejected, and the message becomes readable with deleted:true afterward. This goes well beyond the 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 is compact and information-dense: every sentence contributes either workflow, safety, or post-condition detail. The two-step behavior is front-loaded, and there is no redundant 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?

The description is complete for a destructive tool with no output schema: it explains the preview payload, the confirmation mechanism, irreversibility, ownership restriction, and the resulting message state. An agent has enough information to invoke both steps correctly and understand failure conditions.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining the two-phase flow, the role of confirm_token from the preview, and the validation of chat/message_id on the confirm step, which supplements the schema 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 clearly states the tool deletes the user's own message using a two-step confirmation workflow, and explicitly notes that deleting another user's message is rejected. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_message and send_message with a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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 explains exactly when to use the tool and how to sequence calls: first without confirm to get a preview, then with confirm:true and the token to actually delete. It clearly excludes deleting other users' messages, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like edit_message.

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