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

Far beyond the destructive/idempotent annotations, it explains that trashing stays recoverable for 30 days but still consumes a draft-limit slot, that permanent deletion is irreversible yet frees the slot immediately, that all listings and schedules are purged, and that omitting mode on a client without interactive support causes a refusal rather than a default. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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?

Front-loaded with the action scope, then consequences, then the mode mechanics in a logical progression. The mode paragraph is dense with semicolons and clauses, but every sentence carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema and destructive annotations already present, the description fills the remaining gaps: eligibility, reversibility window, side effects on schedules and listings, and the interactive-confirmation failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to avoid a wrong or destructive call 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?

The description adds meaning to mode beyond the schema description by tying each value to consequences (trash vs permanent) and clarifying that passing it acts immediately without a prompt. The post_id URL/share-link resolution is left entirely to the schema, but the schema already covers it well.

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 ('Delete a DRAFT post') and immediately narrows the scope to posts in DRAFT status, which separates it from siblings like publish_draft, unschedule_post, or update_post. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 states the eligibility condition explicitly (only DRAFT posts; published or scheduled cannot be deleted here) and points to restore_post as the recovery path after trashing. It does not name the tool to use instead for published or scheduled posts, which leaves one routing gap for an agent holding the wrong post status.

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