delete_social_postRemove one planned post from the calendar. Cannot be undone. Anything already published stays published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_id | Yes | The post id from get_calendar | |
| brand_id | Yes | Brand workspace id from list_brands | |
| user_goal | No | Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. "add a page so customers can book tables"). No names, emails or other personal details. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / user_goalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional: the user's goal behind this call, in one short sentence of plain words (e.g. \"add a page so customers can book tables\"). No names, emails or other personal details.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit for the extra detail it does supply: irreversible ('Cannot be undone') and that already-published content is unaffected by the deletion. It does not address what happens to a post that is scheduled or mid-publish, which is the main remaining unknown for a destructive mutation.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the irreversibility warning, then the blast-radius boundary. No filler and no repetition 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?
For a destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs: it is irreversible and published posts survive. It omits edge cases such as deleting a post that is currently queued or already publishing, which is a modest but real gap.
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 100%, and the schema itself points to the source tools ('post id from get_calendar', 'brand workspace id from list_brands'). The description adds nothing about any of the three parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Remove one planned post from the calendar') and adds the scope qualifier 'anything already published stays published', which implicitly separates it from delete_published_post. However, it never names that sibling explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the routing.
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?
'Planned post' plus 'anything already published stays published' conveys clear context for when this applies and implies published posts are out of scope. It stops short of an explicit 'use delete_published_post instead for published content' exclusion or any prerequisite guidance (e.g. whether a queued post must be cancelled first).
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.