delete_message_for_everyone

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the outcome ('delete for everyone') but lacks crucial behavioral traits: required permissions, irreversibility, effect on chat history, error handling (e.g., message too old). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical details that would justify its brevity. The structure lacks front-loading of essential information; the one sentence is too minimal to be effective.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the 'everyone' scope, whether participant is required, what happens on success/failure, or any constraints. The agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 60%, which is moderate. The description adds no information about parameters—their meaning, relationships, or usage hints. The schema provides basic descriptions for 'id' and 'participant', but without context like 'fromMe' role or 'remoteJid' purpose, the agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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 states the action ('delete') and resource ('message for everyone in the chat'), which is clear. However, it essentially restates the tool name, adding little new information. It does distinguish from siblings like 'update_message' but lacks specificity about the scope or conditions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, limitations (e.g., time window for deletion), or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The absence of any usage context makes it hard for an agent to select correctly.

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