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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing cascading effects (media files are removed), the specific failure mode and error code for published posts, and the resulting external state (the live post remains on the platform). It does not address reversibility or required permissions, which keeps it off a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action, then effects, then the blocking condition and its consequence. No filler and no repetition of annotation content.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what gets removed, what fails, and what happens to the external resource. Reversibility and permission prerequisites are the only notable omissions.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already tells the agent everything about the `id` field. The description adds no additional meaning about the identifier, such as where to obtain it or whether it refers to an internal post id versus a platform-side id, so it lands at the baseline.

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?

"Delete a post" names a specific verb and resource, and the following sentences define the exact scope of deletion (post plus media files) and its limiting condition. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like update_post, unschedule_post, or publish_post without opening any 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 gives an explicit when-not-to-use rule: published posts cannot be deleted and will surface a 409 not_editable. It stops short of naming the alternative action an agent should take instead (e.g., unschedule or check status first), so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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