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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: replies cascade, authorization is limited to author/staff, and errors are returned for not-found or unauthorized cases. The exact success and error return shapes are also disclosed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated first, followed by minimal Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers the key requirements: what is deleted, who may delete, what happens to replies, and what response to expect on both success and failure. No output schema exists, but the return contract is explicitly documented.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the parameter, and it does: 'post_id: The post to delete.' It also reinforces that the returned deleted_post_id is the same identifier, which is useful given the bare schema.

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 states a specific action ('Delete a forum post') on a specific resource, and clarifies authorization ('author or staff'). It also distinguishes posts from replies by noting that replies cascade, which separates it from delete_forum_reply.

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for posts, not replies, and only the author or staff can perform the deletion. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_forum_reply, but the resource scope and authorization condition are enough to guide correct usage.

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