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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds preconditions and failure semantics the annotations cannot express: published posts return 400, hosted-account posts return 409 with support instructions, and the operation is 'Free'. This is materially useful context for a destructive 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core constraint (scheduled-only) before the edge cases. Every sentence carries a distinct, load-bearing fact with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions, the two distinct error outcomes, and the account-type nuance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly or interpret failure 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?

Schema coverage is 100% — both accountId and postId are documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_managed_posts. The description adds no new syntax or format detail beyond that, so the 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 managed post') and narrows the scope precisely to one that 'is still scheduled (queued, not yet live)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like cancel_social_post and delete_brand without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('still scheduled'), the when-not ('Once a post has published it can no longer be removed'), and the account-specific exclusion ('On hosted accounts a submitted post is already a work order... cannot be withdrawn through the API'). It even routes the agent to the correct fallback ('contact support').

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