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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by clarifying the delete is soft ('Soft-deleted') and reversible, which is crucial operational context. It doesn't detail side effects like permissions or related data handling, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed beyond annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and no superfluous details. Every word earns its place, including the soft-delete note and restore pointer.

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 (one parameter), has full annotations, an output schema, and a description that covers purpose, key behavior (soft delete), and recovery path. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% with postId described as 'The post ID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter and the description provides no additional syntax or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('CMS post by ID'), making the action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like restore_post and update_post by focusing on deletion and mentioning the restore counterpart.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('Delete a CMS post by ID') and provides an alternative for reversal ('can be restored with restore_post'). It lacks explicit exclusions (e.g., permanent deletion scenarios), but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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