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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: a state-based precondition that some posts are undeletable. It does not state irreversibility, required permissions, or failure behavior beyond the implicit refusal.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action before the constraint. The third sentence restates the second in inverse form ('only drafts can be deleted' / 'published cannot'), a small redundancy that could be trimmed.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical decision input (deletability by post state). It omits what happens on success/failure and whether deletion is permanent, which would round it out.

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% for the single postId parameter, so the schema already documents the argument fully. The description adds no ID format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a post') unambiguously, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from other delete siblings (delete_broadcast, delete_comment_automation), but the resource is named precisely enough to avoid confusion.

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 gives an explicit eligibility rule: only draft and scheduled posts can be deleted, and published posts cannot. This is a clear when-not condition that prevents a failed call. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., unpublishing first), so it isn't a full 5.

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