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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses role-dependent semantics, soft-delete/recycle-bin behavior, the one-pending-request-per-post rule, and the observable outcome strings ('requested', 'already'). It stops short of stating whether an admin delete is permanent/irreversible, which for a destructive moderation action would be the final useful detail.

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 one-line purpose, then role branches in descending authority order, then the sibling pointer. Information-dense with essentially no filler, though the single long enumerative sentence is heavier than ideal.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by naming outcome values ('requested', 'already') that a caller would otherwise have to discover by trial. It covers role, preconditions, and routing; the only gap is the irreversibility of the admin path.

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 67% and the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that boardSlug is required specifically for moderators and that the post must actually belong to that board, plus that reason is forwarded to board moderators. This constrains usage in a way the schema's terse field notes do not.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Moderation delete for a post') and immediately distinguishes the tool by role-based behavior, which no sibling (delete_post, admin_delete_comment) shares. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from plain post deletion 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?

It spells out exactly which actor uses which path (admin direct, chief soft-delete, deputy files a request), the required precondition (moderators must pass boardSlug and the post must belong to that board), and routes pending decisions to the explicit sibling mod_decide_delete_request. When/when-not is fully covered.

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