delete_dm

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool targets private messages and highlights the anti-spam and suspension risk, which adds important behavioral context beyond a generic '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 brief and front-loaded: a single action sentence, a critical safety note, and a minimal args list. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 delete tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the action, the primary risk, and the parameter. It could optionally reference get_dm_history for locating message IDs, but that is not essential for the tool's core function.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description's Args section only says 'message_id: The message ID to delete.' This is essentially a restatement of the schema's 'Message Id' label and fails to explain how to obtain the ID or any format/type nuances, relying on the schema's type information.

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 clearly states 'Delete a direct message by ID' with a specific verb (delete), a clear resource (direct message), and the method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_tweet and delete_retweet.

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 provides a practical warning: 'Deletes a PRIVATE message. Do not bulk-call. X has aggressive anti-spam on DMs and may suspend the account.' This tells the agent when to exercise caution and the risk of misuse, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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