tg_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states 'Not recoverable' and explains that revoke=True removes messages for everyone, conveying destructive permanence and audience. However, it omits permission requirements and the exact behavior when revoke=False, leaving minor gaps.

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 three short sentences that pack essential safety and scope information with no filler. The main verb appears first, making it highly scannable.

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?

This is a simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, but the description omits revoke=False behavior and permission prerequisites. While core deletion semantics are present, an agent might not know limitations for deleting others' messages or when revoke=False is appropriate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the revoke parameter's effect, but chat and message_ids are left to their names with no additional format or usage guidance beyond the schema. The added revoke semantics prevents a lower score.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource 'messages' and immediately clarifies the revoke option, which defines deletion scope. It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like tg_edit or tg_archive.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or scenarios described. The tool name implies usage, but the description does not explicitly frame when deletion is appropriate.

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