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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value on top: irreversibility and a mandatory user-confirmation step. It does not describe failure modes (e.g. already-deleted post) or auth requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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 and identifier forms, followed by the risk and the required confirmation. No 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?

With no output schema, the description need not explain returns, and it covers the destructive-action context thoroughly. The remaining gap is the undocumented accountId/profileId parameters, which an agent must infer from elsewhere.

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 only 33% – postId is documented but accountId and profileId are bare. The description usefully clarifies postId as the record key or URL-encoded AT URI, going slightly beyond the schema, but says nothing about accountId vs profileId or what happens when both are supplied.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Delete a post from a connected Bluesky account') with the two accepted identifier forms spelled out, and it names the sibling tools (create_post, list_posts) that produced the ID. Easily distinguished from delete_x_post and delete_comment.

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?

States the precondition 'Confirm with the user first' and warns 'It cannot be undone', which is genuine usage guidance for a destructive call. It does not explicitly contrast when to use this versus delete_x_post/delete_comment, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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