recall_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the restriction but does not mention what happens on failure (e.g., trying to recall others' messages), time limits, or whether the recall is destructive (deletes the message). Key missing details 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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness. It could include more behavioral context without becoming verbose, so it is adequately concise but not optimally informative.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description still lacks important context: error handling, permission details, time window for recall, and what the confirmation or result looks like. It is incomplete for guiding correct invocation.

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 description provides a brief parameter description ('要撤回的消息 ID') which is essentially the same as the parameter name. With 0% schema description coverage, more detail is needed—e.g., how to obtain the message_id, format expectations, or examples. The added value over the schema is minimal.

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 ('撤回' meaning recall) and the resource (messages). It adds context about when it's useful ('发错了能撤回来' meaning can recall if sent by mistake) and restricts to bot-sent messages or admin actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message or send_image.

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 mentions the restriction ('仅限机器人发送的消息或管理员') which gives a condition for use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. The guideline is implied but not fully explicit.

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