Delete Message

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable context: deletion is 'for everyone' (affects the entire chat), only works for self-sent messages, and has a time limit. This goes beyond annotations and warns about the limited applicability, though it doesn't detail failure modes or reversibility.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded, immediately stating the purpose. The second sentence adds necessary constraints without extraneous detail. Every word contributes value.

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 destructive tool with three clearly documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: scope of deletion (everyone), eligibility (own messages), and time constraint. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it, though it does not specify error handling or return values, which are not required given the context.

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 already covers all three parameters (remote_jid, message_id, from_me) with clear descriptions, resulting in 100% schema coverage. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool deletes a WhatsApp message for everyone in the chat, using the specific verb 'delete' and the resource 'message'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_message and mark_as_read by indicating the action and scope (for everyone), and it further clarifies that only messages sent by the user are eligible.

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 explicit constraints: it only works for messages you sent and within a time limit. This clearly signals when the tool is applicable and when it should not be attempted. It does not name alternatives, but the context of siblings (e.g., update_message) and the constraints are enough to guide the agent.

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