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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the invalid-id error shape and the id format constraint, but says nothing about irreversibility or permissions beyond what annotations carry.

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 compact clauses with the action first, then the required parameter's origin and constraints, then the optional parameter; every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are adequately documented despite zero schema coverage. The only omission is an explicit statement that deletion is irreversible, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: post_id is defined as the id from gbp_list_posts with an explicit character constraint and the caveat that it is not a resource name, and workspace is defined as a customer workspace slug. Minor gap is that the workspace slug format itself is not exemplified.

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 ("Löscht einen Local Post") and ties it to the sibling that produces the identifier (gbp_list_posts), so the agent can distinguish it from gbp_create_post/gbp_list_posts 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?

Explains where post_id comes from (gbp_list_posts) and that workspace is optional when only one workspace exists, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative delete path, so not a 5.

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