bot_delete_messageDelete a bot message or an admin-authorized message by chat and message ID; deletion is irreversible, so confirm with the user first.
Delete a message the bot may delete (its own, or as admin). Irreversible; confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat id (number, e.g. 123456789) or public '@channel' username. See bot_list_chats. | |
| message_id | Yes | Message id to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / chat_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Chat id (number from bot_get_new_messages or bot_list_chats, e.g. 123456789) or a public channel/group username like '@mychannel'."New value: +"Chat id (number, e.g. 123456789) or public '@channel' username. See bot_list_chats."Input schema / properties / chat_id / titleRemoved value: -"Chat Id"Input schema / properties / message_id / titleRemoved value: -"Message Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"bot_delete_messageArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "bot_delete_messageDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: that the operation is irreversible and gated on bot ownership or admin rights.
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 compact clauses: the operation and scope first, then the irreversible-and-confirm warning. No filler, and the highest-risk information (irreversibility) is surfaced early.
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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers scope, irreversibility, and a user-confirmation requirement. It does not cover failure behavior when the bot lacks delete rights, which is a minor gap.
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 100%, with both chat_id and message_id documented in the schema, including the pointer to bot_list_chats. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (message) plus the scope qualifier 'the bot may delete (its own, or as admin)', which no sibling tool covers — this is the only destructive message tool in the set.
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 the tool applies (bot's own messages, or admin privileges) and an explicit precondition ('confirm with the user first'), but names no alternative tool for cases where the bot lacks permission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.