Delete Teams Channel Message

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits. It discloses the soft-delete behavior and permission enforcement, which adds context. However, it does not mention side effects on replies, reversibility, or error outcomes, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 highly concise and effectively front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by a permission note and a Chinese intent line. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 straightforward delete operation, the description plus schema adequately capture the core information: what is deleted, the permission context, and the parameters. No output schema exists, but the tool likely returns a simple success/failure; a bit more on consequences or return values would make it 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the schema already covers parameter meanings. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely repeating that messages or replies can be deleted without explaining the replyId logic further.

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 specifies the action: 'Soft-delete a Teams channel message or reply.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like teams_delete_chat_message and teams_delete_channel, and explicitly covers both root messages and replies.

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 intended use case is implied by the tool name and resource, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like teams_delete_chat_message. The note about Microsoft Graph and tenant policy is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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