clickup_chat_message_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It explicitly discloses destructive nature ('permanently delete', 'destructive and irreversible'), permission requirements ('only the message author or a workspace admin'), error conditions ('other users will get a 403'), and return behavior ('returns an empty object on success'). This covers critical behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by critical behavioral warnings, and ending with return value. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, behavioral consequences, authorization requirements, error conditions, and return value. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, this description provides all necessary context for safe usage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('permanently delete'), resource ('a message from a ClickUp chat channel or DM thread'), and scope ('message and its threaded replies'). It distinguishes from siblings like clickup_chat_message_update (modify) and clickup_chat_message_list (view).

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (to delete messages) and mentions prerequisites (message author or workspace admin). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like clickup_chat_message_update for editing instead of deleting, or specify when deletion is appropriate versus other actions.

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