yougile_delete_message

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the crucial context that this is a 'soft-delete', implying the message is not hard-removed. It also discloses that editing message text is not supported by the API, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with two sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a relevant, non-redundant API limitation note. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core operation and a notable limitation. The soft-delete behavior and the unsupported editing note provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though it could optionally mention the response format or recovery of deleted messages.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (chatId and messageId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra information about the parameters or how they should be formatted, so it does not exceed the baseline of 3 for high 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 identifies the action: 'Soft-delete a message.' It specifies the resource (message) and the operation (soft-delete), distinguishing it from other message-related tools like sending or getting. The additional note about editing not being supported further clarifies its purpose and differentiates it from potential update operations.

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 implies usage by stating the action, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The note about editing not being supported is a limitation, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of when to prefer this over other tools or any exclusions.

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