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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the blast radius explicitly excludes the source post and messages in other destinations, telling the agent what is NOT destroyed. It stops short of stating that the published message removal is permanent/irreversible.

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 precondition 'Use only when the author explicitly asks', followed by the action and the survivors clause. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 annotations and an output schema, the definition covers the precondition, the target, and the unaffected resources – what an agent needs to call it safely. The only gap is not stating whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single publicationId parameter, so the schema documents only type and length bounds, not meaning. The description partially compensates by indicating the id identifies the previously published message, but adds no format, source, or example. With one parameter and no schema prose, this is adequate but thin.

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 (delete) and a clearly bounded resource: one message previously published by Postlyra, identified by publicationId. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like cancel_publication or archive_post by scoping to already-published messages, though it never names the nearest alternative. Clear and specific, but the sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition – use only when the author explicitly asks to delete – which is stronger than typical 'when to use' text and functions as a guardrail. It does not name cancel_publication or reschedule_publication as the alternatives for other intents, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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