delete_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does: it discloses the operation is soft/non-destructive, that the message becomes invisible to inbox/search/filters/counters but survives in get_thread, that acks and lifecycle events persist as history, and it enumerates four refusal conditions with their rationale. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core semantics before the refusal list, and every clause carries information. The refusal enumeration is dense and slightly list-like, but each item earns its place because it changes agent behavior.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and for a single-param deletion tool the description covers semantics, side effects, sibling differentiation, and all blocking preconditions. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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?

A single parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the message must be one 'you sent or received' and that approval/pending states block deletion, which constrains which IDs are valid, but it never clarifies the message_id format or how it maps to threads. Adequate given only one param, not more.

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 ('Soft-delete a message') and immediately defines the semantic model (tombstone) that lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like resolve_message, reopen_message, or delete_channel. No other tool in the sibling list does soft-delete-with-tombstone.

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?

It gives explicit when-not conditions: refuses messages you aren't a party to, approval records, OPEN action_required, and resolved-but-unconfirmed messages, each with the corrective action to take first (resolve a debt, confirm_resolution, reopen). That is as close to a decision table as a description gets.

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