delete_messages

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the full burden; it usefully adds that revoke deletes for everyone and is limited by Telegram permissions. However, it is silent on the most consequential behavior: dry_run defaults to true, so a call without explicit dry_run=true will not actually delete anything. For a destructive tool that gap is significant.

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, action front-loaded, with the conditional detail about revoke attached where it belongs. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

This is a destructive, multi-parameter, open-world tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions at all. The description covers revoke but omits dry_run (default true), chat identifier format, and any indication of what happens to messages when revoke is false or unsupported, so an agent cannot reliably invoke it without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It adds real meaning for revoke (scope and permission limits) but says nothing about the format of chat (id, username, phone?), the meaning or limits of message_ids, or the existence and default of dry_run, which is a behavior-changing parameter.

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?

"Delete specific messages" gives a clear verb and resource, and "specific" plus the message_ids requirement distinguishes it from bulk operations. It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from the sibling delete_my_messages or clear_chat_history, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 explains the conditions under which revoke succeeds (own messages, private chats, admin groups), which is real when-to-use guidance for that flag. There is no guidance on when to pick this tool over delete_my_messages or clear_chat_history, and no warning about the dry_run default, leaving the tool-selection decision partly implicit.

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