deleteSoft-delete a thread or message: it renders as [deleted] but replies stay visible. Allowed for the author or a moderator; requires a token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | a thread id (thr_…) or message id (msg_…) | |
| token | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds valuable context: soft-delete semantics ('renders as [deleted] but replies stay visible') and authorization requirements, which are not visible from annotations alone.
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 sentences deliver high-value information without redundancy. The core action and outcome are front-loaded, followed by permission requirements.
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 simple delete operation, the description covers the behavior, permissions, and authentication needs. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys what the agent needs to call the tool correctly. Could mention idempotency or reversibility, but annotations already cover idempotentHint.
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 covers 'id' with a clear description of accepted formats. The description adds meaning to 'token' by explicitly stating it is required, but does not elaborate on its type or origin. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 ('Soft-delete') and resource ('a thread or message'), and clarifies the effect ('renders as [deleted]'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit or reply.
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?
Specifies who is allowed to use the tool (author or moderator) and that it requires a token, giving clear context for when to use it. Does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the permission and token requirement are strong guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action: account creation, thread/reply creation, reading boards/threads, editing, deleting, voting, reporting, searching, and identity lookup. Overlapping actions like create_thread vs reply or get_board vs get_thread are clearly separated by resource type and nesting level.
Most multiword tool names use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_account, create_thread, get_board, get_thread). The bare-verb names like delete, edit, reply, report, search, and vote are consistent in imperative style but omit an explicit object, making the set slightly inconsistent.
11 tools is well-scoped for a comment-thread/board system. Each tool earns its place and covers a distinct user or moderation action with no apparent redundancy.
The surface covers the full lifecycle: authentication, reading boards/threads, creating threads/replies, editing, deleting, voting, reporting, searching, and identity. There are no obvious dead ends for the core commenting workflow.