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 behavioral disclosure. 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'requires confirm=true' are a valuable warning and guard, but the description omits permanence, permissions, side effects on replies or media, and what happens when confirm is false beyond the schema note.

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 a single dense sentence fragment with no filler, and the destructive warning is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse for a simple destructive tool, though it leans on the schema for detail.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It tells the agent that deletion requires confirm=true but not what response to expect, what happens when confirm is false, or any constraints on message_ids, making safe invocation under-specified.

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?

Only the confirm parameter has a schema description, and the tool description does not compensate for the low 33% coverage. chat_id and message_ids are left as bare typed names with no added meaning about their format, relationship, or constraints.

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 clearly states the verb-object relationship 'Delete messages' and adds the destructive confirmation guard, so an agent understands it removes message resources rather than chats or other entities. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like delete_chat, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'requires confirm=true' gives a direct invocation requirement for a destructive action. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over delete_chat, whether there are prerequisites, or when not to use it, so the usage 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.