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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the eligibility window (draft or eligible failed post only), the confirmation requirement, and the retry contract on a lost response — behavior an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the exclusion and the retry note. No filler, though the idempotency sentence partially duplicates the schema text rather than adding new 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 only three fully-described parameters, rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers eligibility, exclusion and failure-retry behavior. It doesn't state whether deletion is irreversible or what a success response contains, which would be the final piece for a destructive 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%, so postGroupId, workspaceId and idempotencyKey are all fully documented in the schema. The description's retry sentence restates the idempotencyKey guidance already present in the schema rather than extending it, 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 (delete) and resource (Agency draft or eligible failed post) and immediately carves out the excluded scope: published posts on social networks. That contrast with the sibling delete_post / social-network deletion path lets an agent distinguish it 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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it (published posts) and adds a pre-call instruction to confirm the selected post. It stops short of naming the exact alternative tool for published-post deletion, but the exclusion plus eligibility framing gives a clear selection rule.

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