delete_msg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the authorization model (own messages, or group-admin recall of member messages), but omits key mutation traits such as irreversibility, the platform recall time limit, and error behavior on failure.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing ':param message_id: 目标消息 ID' line duplicates the schema verbatim and does not earn its place.

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 single-parameter destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and permissions but leaves gaps around irreversibility and platform recall constraints that an agent would want before invoking.

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%, so the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description merely repeats the identical param text (':param message_id: 目标消息 ID') and adds no syntax or meaning beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('撤回指定消息') and maps to the underlying OneBot 11 API, so the agent knows it withdraws/recalls a message. The resource ('消息') is distinct enough from sibling deleters like delete_friend and delete_group_file, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 gives the permission condition ('可撤回自己发出的消息，或作为群管理员撤回群成员消息'), which is genuine when-to-use context. However it does not name alternatives (e.g., delete_essence_msg) or state exclusions, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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