Contact Message Delete

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 discloses almost nothing: no statement that deletion is irreversible, no permission or capability requirement, no confirmation semantics. Only the word 'Delete' hints at a destructive mutation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than genuine economy, so it lands at the minimum-viable mark.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. But for a destructive, annotation-free tool with an undocumented required identifier, the description omits irreversibility, permission needs, and how to source the id, leaving meaningful gaps for an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter message_id has no type-level description. The description does not compensate by explaining what a message_id is, where to obtain it (e.g., from contact_message_list), or its format.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (contact message), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as contact_message_get, contact_message_list, or contact_spam_check, leaving that differentiation to the tool name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus contact_message_list/contact_message_get, nor any prerequisite or exclusion stated. The agent is left to infer that this is the destructive counterpart to the getter.

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