delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive and requires user confirmation, which is useful, but it omits permissions required, whether deletion is permanent, audit logging, rate limits, and response behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety instruction. There is no wasted wording, though it is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation tool.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers the core action and a confirmation requirement but lacks parameter semantics, permission requirements, reversibility, and result behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions no parameters at all; channel_id, message_id, and reason are left entirely to the schema titles, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'APAGA uma mensagem' (delete a message). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools such as delete_channel, delete_role, and delete_invite, though it does not specify scope such as whether it can delete any message or only the bot's own.

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?

It gives one explicit usage instruction: confirm with the user before deleting. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites such as permissions. The guidance is adequate but minimal.

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