Delete a message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses soft delete behavior, default oase selection, and permission requirements. It also mentions the backend rejection scenario, which is a helpful behavioral detail. It doesn't cover all possible side effects, but it's more than adequate for this 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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and soft-delete note, followed by parameter sourcing and permission guidance. No fluff or redundancy; every sentence provides 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 tool with 2 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: how to get the message, the default oase behavior, and permission constraints. It doesn't mention the response format, but that's not critical given the simplicity. It's reasonably complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining where message_id comes from and that omitting oase_id defaults to the last joined oase, which is not in the schema. This enriches the parameter understanding.

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 ('Delete a chat message') and the specific behavior (soft delete). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_message and delete_post by indicating it's for messages, and it specifies the resource type. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit context on how to obtain the message_id ('from send_message or read_messages output') and explains the default behavior of oase_id. It also gives clear conditions for successful execution (own messages vs. requiring admin/owner). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient for correct usage.

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