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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses soft-delete semantics, restorability from the web UI, and the edge-case behavior that already-recycled posts return not-found. It stops short of stating auth requirements or secondary effects (e.g. what happens to the post's comments).

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first delivers the core action and reversibility, the second handles the notable edge case. The main behavior is front-loaded with zero filler.

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 one-parameter delete with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials: what happens (soft delete), reversibility, and the not-found behavior. Auth requirement and downstream effects are the only meaningful omissions.

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 0% for the single postId parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies postId identifies a post the caller owns, adding an ownership constraint, but contributes no format or identifier detail beyond what the schema's uuid type already conveys.

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+resource+scope: 'Move one of the authenticated user's posts to the recycle bin,' which distinguishes it from the sibling mod_delete_post by limiting it to the caller's own posts. It never names the alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The scoping ('authenticated user's posts') implies when this tool applies versus the moderator variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the ownership constraint.

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