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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds what the agent actually needs: the operation is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and is gated on draft state, which is a precondition annotations cannot express. That is genuine context beyond the structured flags.

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 tight sentences: scope first, then the restriction plus the alternative, then irreversibility, closing with related tools. Every sentence earns its place and the disqualifying constraint is front-loaded where an agent will read it before calling.

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 single-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers precondition, irreversibility, and alternative routing; annotations cover the safety profile and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and there is a single required postId param, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces that postId must reference an unsent draft, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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 (permanently deletes) and resource (draft post) with the exact scope constraint: only drafts never sent for review. It explicitly distinguishes itself from archive_post by naming the point at which deletion stops being possible, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (unsent draft) and when-not (post in review, queued, or live), and names the alternative to use in the negative case ('call archive_post so it will not publish'). This is a full routing decision spelled out in the text.

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