delete_scheduled_message_via_name_or_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two key traits: destructiveness and a confirmation gate. However, 'requires confirmation code' is ambiguous against the schema, where the required gate is a boolean `confirm` and the token is an optional `confirmationToken`; irreversibility and what happens on a bad token are unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, hazard signal second. Zero filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone for a destructive three-parameter tool. It flags destruction and confirmation but leaves the confirm-vs-confirmationToken relationship and success/failure outcomes unexplained.

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 properties already document scheduledMessageId, confirm, and confirmationToken thoroughly (including 'Do not guess'). The description adds nothing parameter-level beyond repeating that confirmation is required, so 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 and resource ('Delete a scheduled message') plus a scoping constraint ('before delivery') that separates it from delete_message and edit_scheduled_message. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, but the scheduled-message qualifier already does most of that work.

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 phrase 'before delivery' implies the only valid window for use, but there is no explicit 'do not use for already-sent messages, use delete_message instead,' and no pointer to list_scheduled_messages for ID discovery — that guidance lives only in the schema property text.

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