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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description usefully reinforces that the delete is permanent and adds the non-obvious guardrail that scheduled/published posts are rejected. It does not say what error surfaces on refusal, whether the draft is recoverable, or address the idempotency behavior implied by idempotentHint=false, so it stops short of full behavioral coverage.

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; the destructive scope is front-loaded and the guardrail/alternative follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the key refusal case; only minor details (auth requirements, failure behavior) are absent.

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 0% and the description adds no information about postId (format, source, whether it must be an existing draft). The name is largely self-explanatory and there is only one parameter, so this gap is minor, but per the low-coverage rule the description does not compensate.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Permanently delete a draft post") with an explicit scope limit that separates it from cancel_scheduled_post. An agent can pick this over the many post-related siblings 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?

Gives both the when-not (scheduled or published posts are refused) and the named alternative (cancel_scheduled_post) that should be used instead. This is exactly the routing information an agent needs when it has a post ID and is unsure which mutating tool to call.

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