delete_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral guardrail ('Requires confirm=true'), which is important for a destructive operation； however, it does not state irreversibility, error behavior if confirm is false, or consequences of deleting. This is moderate disclosure for a delete operation.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that deliver the core action, scope, message-ID mechanism, and confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant phrases.

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 two-parameter delete tool, the description covers the essential invocation details: target, scope, message ID, and confirmation. However, it lacks clarity on output/return behavior and edge cases (e.g., invalid/non-owned message ID), and there is no output schema to provide that 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?

Schema coverage is 50% — messageId is documented but confirm is not. The description compensates by explicitly stating confirm=true is required, giving semantic meaning to the previously undocumented confirm parameter. This is valuable beyond the schema.

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 clear action ('Hapus Status/story' = delete status/story), specifies the target ('milik sendiri' = own only), and identifies the input mechanism ('via message id'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like post_status and list_status, which create and read statuses respectively.

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 implies usage context: delete your own status/story using a message ID, and it explicitly requires confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusions beyond 'own', so guidance is mostly implicit.

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