slack_stdio_delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It identifies the endpoint but does not state that deletion is irreversible, what permissions are required, what happens to related data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence is highly efficient; the second sentence provides rationale about hosted Slack MCP limitations, though its value is somewhat marginal.

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 simple two-parameter deletion tool, the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral details such as irreversibility, permission needs, and response/error behavior, leaving the agent with only partial context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds the 'user posted' constraint but does not add meaning to channel_id or message_ts beyond what the schema provides. It meets the baseline but adds little extra parameter value.

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 clear verb ('Delete') with a specific resource ('a message the user posted') and names the underlying API method (chat.delete). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like update_message and remove_reaction without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 implicitly scopes usage to messages the user themselves posted, which is a useful constraint. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or describe conditions where it should not be used, leaving some inference to the agent.

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