Apagar mensagem

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the permission requirement for deleting others' messages and states 'Irreversivel', which reinforces but does not substantially extend what destructiveHint already conveys. It says nothing about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

A single compact sentence: verb, resource, scope condition, and the irreversibility caveat. Every clause earns its place and the destructive warning is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage, a complete parameter schema, and no output schema, the description covers what is being deleted, whose message, the permission gate, and irreversibility. It is nearly sufficient; only explicit alternative-tool routing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so channelId, messageId and format are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning (no format details, no id-format notes). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 (delete) and resource (a message), and clarifies scope: own messages, or others' if the account has moderation permission on the channel. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling mutations like edit_message or send_message. It stops short of naming a specific alternative, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 description implies when the tool applies and gives one real condition (moderation permission needed to delete others' messages), but it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names an alternative for cases where deletion is undesirable (e.g. edit_message). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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