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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds materially new behavior: a two-phase confirm protocol, that the first call is a no-op validation, that the first call answers a summary plus confirm_token, and required authorization (`content:write`). It does not say whether deletion is permanent or recoverable via restore_post, which is the one behavior an agent most needs before confirming.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and permission, then the two-call flow in order of execution; nothing is filler. The telegraphic phrasing ("Two calls.") is slightly choppy but does not cost clarity.

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 correctly explains what the first call returns (summary, confirm_token) and how to consume it. For a destructive mutation it is nearly complete, missing only the permanence/recoverability question and any note on failure modes after confirmation.

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 only 50% and `id` has no description, but the description compensates by explaining the confirm_token lifecycle and that the second call must repeat the same arguments plus the token. It also notes that a field the tool does not take is refused by name, which is useful but sits oddly against `additionalProperties: true` in the schema.

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?

"Delete a post" states a specific verb and resource, and the permission scope (`content:write`) pins down the target domain. It distinguishes itself from get_post/list_posts by being a mutation, but it never explicitly contrasts with update_post or restore_post, which an agent may plausibly want instead.

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 concrete procedural guidance: call once to preview, show the summary to the person, then re-call with confirm_token only after agreement. Lacks explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives such as restore_post or update_post, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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