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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious non-cascade rule: posts already scheduled or published are left untouched. It also states irreversibility in plain language, complementing destructiveHint=true with the practical consequence an agent needs to reason about.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what gets deleted, what is spared, and the safety precondition. The destructive warning is front-loaded at the end where it lands hardest, with no filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, its boundary conditions, and its irreversibility. 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including that the UUID comes from list_repurpose_history. The description adds only the implication that exactly one source is deleted per call, so the baseline of 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 precise verb and resource ('Delete one repurposed source and its variants') with an explicit scope ('from ContentRipple history'). An agent can distinguish this from delete_media, delete_persona, and delete_post_template without opening a 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?

Provides a directive ('confirm with the user first') which guides invocation, but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like cancel_post or revert_post. Usage is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly framed.

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