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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by emphasizing 'permanently' (beyond mere destructive) and the explicit user-consent requirement, which are not captured in annotations. It does not contradict the 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 short sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence provides a necessary safety condition. It is appropriately concise without being under-specified.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical usage constraint. It does not mention return values or side effects, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable. Annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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 schema has no description for the only parameter 'id' (coverage 0%). The description does not explain that 'id' identifies the post to be deleted, leaving the agent to infer it. Since the tool has just one parameter, this is a notable omission that the description should have clarified.

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 clear verb ('deletes') and resource ('post') with the key qualifier 'permanently', which distinguishes it from a mere cancel or soft-delete. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, but the permanence makes it distinct from xplanner_cancel_post and other delete tools.

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 adds a clear usage condition: 'the user must have explicitly requested this destructive operation.' This tells the agent when it is appropriate to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention any alternative tools (e.g., cancel_post for scheduled posts) or conditions when it should NOT be used.

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