Icu Delete Activity Message

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a '(deleted)' placeholder persists in the thread, the deleted text is returned for possible re-posting, and the original timestamp is unrecoverable. That post-delete state and data-loss caveat are exactly what an agent needs before committing a destructive call.

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 action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by when-to-use, the author constraint, the side effect, and the return value. Each sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of annotations or schema.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers selection, precondition, side effect and the recoverability caveat. The output schema relieves it of describing return formatting, and it still explains the meaningful part of the return (text for re-posting, lost timestamp).

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% and already states that message_id comes from icu_get_activity_messages and that activity_id is the Intervals.icu activity ID. The description adds only the author-ownership constraint, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and 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?

Specific verb-plus-resource: deletes one of the user's own notes from an activity. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling triad icu_get_activity_messages, icu_add_activity_message and icu_update_activity_message because the description names the delete action and its author-only scope.

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 user-intent triggers ('delete my comment on that run', 'remove the note I left yesterday') and a hard precondition (only the author's own notes). It does not explicitly say when to prefer icu_update_activity_message instead of deleting, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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