plu_delete_message

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

The description adds a behavioral trait (require user confirmation) but does not disclose other important aspects like irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens after deletion. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, which it partially meets.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant information, and the key action upfront. Every word serves a purpose.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like whether the action is reversible, any side effects, or relation to other tools like plu_get_messages. The user confirmation note is helpful but not fully complete.

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?

There is one parameter (messageId) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what constitutes a valid messageId or how to obtain it. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the lack of schema coverage.

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 action ('Delete a message') and identifies the resource (message). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like plu_delete_conversation or plu_delete_availability, which could cause ambiguity for an agent selecting among them.

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 includes the guideline 'Ask user confirmation,' which advises when to call the tool. However, it provides no context on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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