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

annotations declare destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: per-platform attempts with separate reporting, the fact that some platforms (TikTok) lack a delete API and require manual cleanup, irreversibility, and a gated approval workflow. This is materially more than the annotations convey.

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?

Front-loads the 'Delete everywhere' framing and stays dense without filler; the platform/partial-failure caveat and the approval warning each earn their place. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter destructive batch tool with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, the cross-platform partial-failure behavior, the irreversibility, and the required user approval — everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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% and the single parameter's description already names its sources (post_batch_id from list_posts, postBatchId from revert_post). The prose adds batch semantics but no additional syntax or format detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the 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 and resource ('delete every published post from one batch... from all of its platforms') with the batch scope spelled out. The parenthetical 'one compose or repurpose action sent to several accounts' and the reference to revert_post's postBatchId make it unambiguous versus the single-post sibling revert_post.

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?

Clearly establishes the destructive context and the prerequisite ('Cannot be undone — get the user's explicit approval first'), and explains partial-failure handling. It does not explicitly contrast when to choose this over revert_post or cancel_post, so the alternative-selection guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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