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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate destructiveness. It adds 'specific existing' to clarify the post must exist, and 'returns the mutation status' to describe the outcome. This is consistent with annotations and adds a small amount of context beyond them, but lacks details on error handling or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and result without unnecessary elaboration. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple delete tool with one required parameter, destructive annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what it returns. It doesn't mention edge cases like non-existent posts, but given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema to describe results, this is a minor gap.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter post_id (100% schema description coverage). The description adds only that the post must be 'existing', which is context about the operation rather than the parameter itself. The schema and description together are sufficient, but no additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 uses a specific verb 'Deletes' and identifies the resource as 'a specific existing Postly post', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like postly_update_post or postly_create_post. It also mentions the return value ('mutation status'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied: the tool is for deleting posts, given the name and description. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or situations to avoid. The distinction from update operations is implicit.

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