delete_message

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: the ~2.5-day window on own messages, the admin-only rule for others' messages, and 'Irréversible' reinforcing non-recoverability.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a one-word 'Irréversible.' — front-loaded with the scope, then the constraints, then the irreversibility warning. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the preconditions for the destructive action are well covered. The gap is parameter documentation: with 0% schema coverage and no parameter mention, an agent must guess at chat/message_id semantics.

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 description never mentions chat, account, or message_id. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does nothing to define formats, defaults, or what 'chat' accepts, leaving the schema to carry an undocumented burden.

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+resource ('Supprime un message') with an explicit scope ('pour tout le monde'), which cleanly separates it from edit_message and other siblings that modify rather than remove. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but the destructive scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: own messages deletable for ~2.5 days, others' only when the caller is a group admin. That tells the agent when the call will succeed versus fail. It doesn't reference sibling tools, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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