buzz_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently flags the operation as 'Destructive,' states that it acts 'as you' (identity-bound), and describes the role-based relay restriction. This goes well beyond the bare schema and gives the agent a realistic safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and destructiveness, and every clause earns its place. The critical identifiers and authorization condition are packed in without redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what action is performed, how destructive it is, who may perform it, and how to specify the target. It does not explain post-deletion behavior, but that is reasonably inferable from 'delete' and would not block a correct call.

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 only 50%, with `channel` lacking a description. The description compensates by explaining the composite identity: 'Identify the message by `channel` + `event`' and clarifying that `event` is the `<id>` from buzz_read. It adds cross-tool context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a message in a channel', and adds a protocol identifier (NIP-29 kind 9005). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like buzz_post, buzz_react, or buzz_remove_member, all of which have different actions or targets.

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 gives clear context for when deletion is permitted: 'the relay only allows it where your OWN role permits (owner/admin)', and instructs how to identify the target message via channel + event. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are necessary since no sibling performs message deletion.

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