Delete Teams Chat Message

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

The description discloses that the deletion is a 'soft-delete' and that Microsoft Graph/tenant policy enforce permissions. However, with no annotations, it carries the full burden, and it does not explain reversibility, effect on chat participants, or whether the message is hidden immediately. It adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 concise: two sentences plus Chinese intent mappings. It front-loads the core action and adds one sentence about policy enforcement. Every part adds value; no redundancy or excessive detail.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential purpose and adds contextual information about authorization. It could mention the result of the operation (e.g., success state) but 'soft-delete' implies the message is removed from view. Overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool's complexity.

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% (both chatId and messageId have descriptions). The tool description does not add any extra semantics about the parameters; it only refers to 'a Teams chat message' generically. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides full parameter information.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Soft-delete a Teams chat message.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like teams_delete_channel_message by specifying 'chat message' rather than channel message. It also provides Chinese intent mappings, which reinforces the exact action being described.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as teams_delete_channel_message. The Chinese intents are essentially synonyms, not usage guidance. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond 'tenant policy' but that is not tool-selection guidance.

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