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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the key extra facts that deletion is permanent ("for good"), which post statuses are eligible, and what the response contains. The only gap is it doesn't restate that repeated calls are safe, but the annotation handles that.

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, no filler: the action and return payload come first, then the prerequisite and exclusion. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 describes the return value (id, prior status, text preview). Combined with annotations covering destructiveness and the explicit status preconditions, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and the single postId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it (postfjord_list_calendar or postfjord_create_draft). The description adds no further parameter detail, so 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 (delete) and resource (draft or cancelled post) plus scope limits, and distinguishes itself from postfjord_cancel_post and postfjord_delete_calendar_note by naming the exact post states it accepts. An agent can identify this tool from the sibling list alone.

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?

Explicitly names the precondition (a scheduled post must first be cancelled via postfjord_cancel_post) and the exclusion (published posts cannot be deleted here). Both the alternative tool and the refusal case are spelled out rather than inferred.

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