Delete Chat Message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does flag this as a mutation and note the confirm gate. It stops short of stating irreversibility, whether deletion is soft or permanent, what the response looks like, or what error occurs on a non-owned message_id. Those are material omissions 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the mutation/confirm constraint. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 three-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what it does and the safety gate but leaves gaps on error behavior, reversibility, and parameter roles. Adequate minimum, not complete.

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 supply meaning. It explains the intent of 'confirm' (a mutation gate set to True) but adds nothing about chat_id or message_id beyond their names, and does not state whether confirm defaults to a no-op delete.

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 specific verb and resource ('Delete ... message from a chat') and narrows scope with 'your own', which implicitly separates it from update_chat_message or send_chat_message. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action and target are unambiguous.

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 discloses a hard precondition ('requires confirm=True'), which is genuinely useful invocation guidance. However, it never says when to delete versus update, what happens if the message is not yours, or what the confirm flag does if omitted (schema default is false, so the call presumably fails or no-ops). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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