删除消息 token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the DELETE method, labels the action as high risk, and provides the unified response shape including success data. However, it does not explain irreversibility, side effects on associated messages/tokens, or permission requirements.

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?

Description is compact and well-organized: endpoint, risk level, request parameter, and response format. It is front-loaded with method and high-risk warning, and every sentence contributes useful 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 single-parameter delete endpoint, the description covers the endpoint, required id, and response format. It lacks deeper context about what deletion affects or authorization needs, but the title and schema provide enough for a straightforward invocation.

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 schema already describes id as '消息 token 编号' and marks it required, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only repeats id with a 'required' label and ties it to the URL, adding no meaningful semantic value beyond the baseline.

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?

Description states explicit verb 'delete' and resource 'message token', plus the HTTP method and endpoint. This distinguishes it from siblings like open_message_delete (message deletion) and open_token_edit/list.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The 'high risk' warning implies caution, but there is no contrast with alternatives such as open_token_edit or open_message_delete, so usage context must be inferred.

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