delete_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the delete is soft, that other members will see a placeholder, and that no undo exists, which is meaningful irreversibility context. It stops short of naming permission/auth requirements or rate limits, leaving a modest gap for a destructive 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by per-case parameter guidance. Slight redundancy between the opening scope line and 'Works on top-level channel messages and on chat messages,' but no wasted sentences overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers action, routing, limitation, and irreversibility. It is nearly complete for a destructive 4-param tool, missing only authorization/permission expectations.

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, and it does: it maps exactly which parameters pair with which message type, resolving the ambiguity left by a schema that marks only message_id as required and expresses no conditional requirement.

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 and resource (soft-delete a message) plus the scope constraint that it must be a message the caller sent. This distinguishes it cleanly from update_message and the send_* siblings without needing to open a schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional routing: team_id + channel_id + message_id for channel messages, chat_id + message_id for chat messages. It also supplies an explicit exclusion (channel thread replies are not supported) with the reason, so the agent knows when not to use it.

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