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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so irreversibility is partly covered. The description still adds genuine behavioral context: published posts are actively refused, bulk deletion is supported, and the uuid/list duality. It does not cover permissions or partial-failure behavior on bulk deletes.

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 and efficient: scope, refusal rule, bulk option, irreversibility. The French translation repeats the entire payload verbatim, which is redundant for an agent that reads English, though it may serve a locale purpose.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risk (irreversibility), the eligibility constraint, and the bulk variant. It leaves the role of the required workspace_uuid and any permission prerequisites unstated.

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 coverage is 67%, with both post_uuid and post_uuids documented in-schema. The description adds the relationship the schema lacks: a single uuid versus a list, positioned as alternatives for bulk cleanup. The undocumented workspace_uuid parameter is not explained in either place.

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 (delete) and a precisely scoped resource (DRAFT or SCHEDULED posts only), and explicitly excludes published posts. An agent can immediately tell this apart from update_draft_post or list_posts 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?

Gives a clear when-not rule ('an already published post is refused') and notes the bulk path via post_uuids for cleanup. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for the published-post case, so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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