delete_my_messages

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However the description omits two behaviorally critical facts visible only in the schema: dry_run defaults to true (so a call deletes nothing unless explicitly disabled) and revoke defaults to true (presumably revoke-for-everyone vs local delete). For a destructive tool at 0% schema coverage, silence on these defaults is a serious gap; only the 'newest first' ordering is genuine added context.

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 tight sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded and the limit semantics in parentheses. Efficient, though it is arguably over-compressed given the number of undocumented parameters.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is too thin: it never explains the dry-run default, the revoke semantics, or what the result reports. An agent could invoke it expecting deletion and get a silent dry run, or vice versa.

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 carry all four parameters. It clarifies only 'limit' (None means all) and implies 'chat'; 'revoke' and 'dry_run' are entirely unexplained despite dry_run being the difference between a no-op and irreversible deletion.

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) with a constrained resource (messages YOU sent in a chat), and adds ordering (newest first). The 'YOU sent' scope implicitly separates it from delete_messages and clear_chat_history, though it never names those siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to prefer this over delete_messages, clear_chat_history, or archive_chats. The scope phrase 'YOU sent' hints at the boundary but leaves the agent to infer it from sibling names alone.

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