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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes well beyond by naming concrete consequences (approval link invalidated, analytics retention decision for published posts) and a hard constraint the annotations cannot express ('Cannot be undone through the API'). This is exactly the value-add expected when annotations are present.

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?

Four short clauses, each carrying distinct information: eligibility, side effect, sibling routing, irreversibility. The eligibility constraint is front-loaded where the agent needs it for a routing decision, and no sentence restates the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: status eligibility, the alternative for scheduled posts, the analytics rationale for published posts, and the irreversibility warning. Remaining gap (post_id documentation) is shared with the schema rather than a description omission.

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 50%: workspace_id is documented in the schema ('Workspace id from list_workspaces') but post_id is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for post_id, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds much beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (deletes) and resource (post) and immediately bounds scope by an enumerated list of eligible statuses (DRAFT, IN_REVIEW, CHANGES_REQUESTED, APPROVED, canceled). It also names the sibling distinction (scheduled posts → cancel_post; published posts are preserved), so an agent can separate this from cancel_post without opening a 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?

Explicit when-to-use is encoded as status preconditions, with a named alternative for the excluded case ('Scheduled posts: cancel_post first') and a stated exclusion for published posts. It even flags a side effect an agent should weigh before calling ('A pending approval link stops working').

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