⚠️ Удалить сообщение

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds value by stating the destructive action and requiring user confirmation, which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction; description aligns with 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 extremely concise: two short sentences that fully convey purpose and a usage guideline. No fluff; front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a safety guideline but lacks information on return values, error handling, or prerequisites. An average completeness for a moderately complex tool.

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 100%, with each parameter already well-described (e.g., dryRun and idempotencyKey have detailed explanations). The description adds no further information about parameters, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('УДАЛЯЕТ сообщение') and the resource ('в чате'), making it distinct from sibling messenger tools like messenger_get_messages or messenger_post_send_message. The warning emoji in the title further emphasizes destructiveness.

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 explicitly advises user confirmation ('Подтверждайте у пользователя'), providing a clear when-to-use guideline. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative approaches (e.g., hiding messages), though the destructive hint implies caution.

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