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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses concrete consequences: comments and stats are removed, a scheduled send is cancelled, published content disappears from web/archive/app, already-sent emails remain, and there is no undo. These are exactly the behavioral details an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 front-loaded with the action and consequences, and every sentence carries useful information. It is slightly repetitive in restating the draft/scheduled/published triad twice, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, irreversibility, confirmation behavior, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the single post_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that deletion targets one post of your publication, which is minimal additional semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (post), and explicitly enumerates the three post states it handles: draft, scheduled, and published. It also names the sibling tool unpublish_post as the alternative, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

It states exactly when to use this tool versus the closest sibling, noting that unpublish_post keeps the post as a draft instead. It also explains the confirmation default and that the owner must approve, which informs invocation conditions.

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