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 known; the description adds two things annotations cannot convey — that the editor draft survives (bounding the destruction) and that user confirmation is required. It omits what happens to the public URL after removal and how a revision mismatch fails, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the behavioral consequence (draft retained) and the safety precondition both appear up front.

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, 3-required-param tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, retained state, and confirmation requirement, and annotations cover reversibility/idempotency. Missing detail is mainly post-conditions for the public URL and revision-mismatch failures.

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%: id and revision are documented in the schema (with the concurrency rationale for revision), but the 'kind' enum has no description in either place, and the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the load.

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 ('Remove a published post or page from the public blog') plus the differentiating outcome ('retaining its editor draft'), which separates it from update_content and publish_content. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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?

'Requires explicit user intent' gives a clear gating condition for when this tool is appropriate, which is meaningful for a destructive operation. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., use update_content to edit instead of unpublishing) or stating when not to call it.

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