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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the delete is soft (plan/list removal, cancellation of a queued write), it cannot be undone from here, and the destructive flow requires a two-call confirmToken sequence. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, decision-relevant fact (soft-delete semantics, CMS boundary, irreversibility, confirm flow). No filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to explain what the first call returns (a summary and a confirmToken). Combined with the soft-delete scope, irreversibility, and CMS exclusion, an agent has everything needed to invoke this safely.

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 67%; site carries its enum inline and confirmToken is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces the confirmToken flow. However, the id parameter has no description in either the schema or the description, so the description does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (remove/delete) and resource (article) and immediately scopes it: soft delete, disappears from the plan and lists, queued write cancelled. It also draws a sharp boundary against the sibling delete_builder_draft/CMS workflow by clarifying it does NOT remove an already-published post. An agent can identify the action without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (removing an article from Blawgy) and when-not-to-use (published post on the website, which must be deleted in the CMS), naming the alternative venue. It also tells the agent the exact two-step invocation path via confirmToken, so the agent knows how to proceed.

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