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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further and adds non-obvious behavioral facts: the action is irreversible and X charges for the deletion. These are exactly the side effects an agent cannot infer from structured fields and materially change the decision to call it.

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 tight sentences that front-load the action and identifier, then layer the irreversible/cost/confirmation facts. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 destructive, billable single-target tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential risks and the confirmation step. The main gap is not clarifying the accountId/profileId distinction among the three parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by tying the post reference to 'providerId from create_post or list_posts.' It says nothing about accountId versus profileId, leaving two required/optional identifiers to the schema alone.

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 gives a specific verb (delete) and resource (a post from a connected X account) and scopes it by identifier, so the agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like delete_comment or ads_delete_campaign, but the target resource is unambiguous.

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 provides one actionable precondition, 'Confirm with the user first,' which is genuinely useful guidance for a destructive call. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over an alternative path (e.g., disconnecting an account) or any other selection context, leaving usage largely implied.

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