buddypress_delete_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, if it requires specific permissions or authentication, potential side effects (e.g., removing messages for all participants), or error conditions. For a destructive operation, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum clarity with minimal length.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage prerequisites, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Thread ID' and required. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a message thread'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'buddypress_get_message' and 'buddypress_list_messages' by specifying deletion rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'buddypress_delete_activity' or 'buddypress_delete_friendship' beyond the resource name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing thread ID), exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like 'buddypress_get_message' for verification before deletion. The description is purely functional without contextual usage advice.

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