Удалить сообщение у собеседника

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, and idempotent=false, but the description adds substantial context: the interlocutor loses the message while the panel retains a crossed-out record, only own messages are affected, the action is irreversible, and age limits may block deletion. This is exactly the kind of side-effect detail an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 compact sentences front-load the tool's action, then add only constraints and side effects. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes, what remains visible, ownership restrictions, reversibility, and platform limits. Combined with complete schema descriptions and matching annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly and safely.

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%, so dialog, message, and case are already documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning such as expected message format or dialog references, 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 states a specific verb and resource: removing your own message from the interlocutor's chat. It distinguishes the effect from a normal delete by explaining that the panel keeps a crossed-out trace. This lets an agent identify the tool apart from siblings like dialogs_edit_message or dialogs_delete.

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 gives clear usage constraints: only your own messages, deletion cannot be undone, and too-old messages cannot be deleted. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over a sibling such as dialogs_edit_message, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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