Удалить сообщение у собеседника

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the recipient's copy is removed while the panel record stays crossed out, deletion is irreversible, and too-old messages are rejected. This gives the agent a solid understanding of consequences. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three terse sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint (scope, irreversible, age limit) with no filler or repetition.

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 destructive tool with two required parameters and annotations already carrying the safety profile, the description covers the main side effects, scope restriction, irreversibility, and a failure condition. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and each parameter (case, dialog, message) is already documented with meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Убирает своё сообщение из чата собеседника') and clarifies that only the caller's own messages can be removed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dialogs_edit_message or dialogs_delete without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides clear invocation conditions: only own messages, irreversible deletion, and platform restrictions on old messages. However, it never names sibling tools or explicitly states when to prefer dialogs_delete_message over dialogs_delete or dialogs_edit_message, so routing guidance remains implicit.

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