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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's value-add is the ownership restriction and the word "tombstone", but it never explains whether a tombstoned post is recoverable or permanently gone — the key behavioral question 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness means the sentence carries no supporting detail about scope or outcome.

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?

With rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is close to callable, but for a destructive operation it omits what "tombstone" actually does (soft-delete vs permanent removal, visibility impact) and the id format for its only parameter.

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?

The single "id" parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no meaning at all; the phrase "one of your own posts" implies the id identifies a post rather than a user or comment, which is modest compensation. It still does not state the id format or confirm it must be a post authored by the caller.

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?

Specific verb ("tombstone") plus a specific resource ("one of your own posts"), and the ownership qualifier distinguishes it from any broader delete capability. It does not name the sibling read/create tools ("post", "read_posts") explicitly, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

"one of your own posts" implies a precondition (ownership) and thus implicitly when the call is valid, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of what to do instead if the post is not yours, and no reference to recovery via a sibling like "recover".

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