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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the eligibility preconditions and by surfacing that responses carry status_before, status_after and approval_required — the last hinting that some deletions need approval, which no annotation conveys. It does not say whether the deletion is immediately irreversible.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the eligibility gates, and the response contract. The action is front-loaded and no sentence restates the tool name or 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?

An output schema exists, so the brief response-field mention is a helpful pointer rather than a necessary substitute. Given the destructive nature, the description covers eligibility and response shape well; the one gap is not stating what happens to a drafted post's content after deletion or naming the fallback 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 coverage is 100% with only two parameters, and the schema already explains dry_run's validate-without-deleting behavior and post_id's meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so this sits at the baseline 3 where the schema does all the work.

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 ('Deletes a draft or scheduled post') and immediately scopes it by listing which posts are ineligible. This is far more informative than a bare 'Delete Post', though it never distinguishes deletion from the sibling archive_posts, which is the nearest adjacent operation an agent might confuse it with.

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 clear when-not-to-use conditions: published posts, and posts whose publish has not finished or been confirmed, cannot be deleted. What is missing is a positive routing hint — an agent whose real goal is to remove a published post is told the call will fail but not what to do instead (archive_posts, presumably).

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