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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it explains the delete only removes our record and does not affect the post on the platform, which is a non-obvious semantic. It still doesn't state irreversibility or what a scheduled post's schedule does on delete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the actionable scope before the exclusion. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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-param mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, precondition, and the platform-vs-record distinction. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens to an attached schedule or what the response looks like on failure.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully at 100% coverage, including the 'id or the number shown to the user' nuance. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so 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 (deletes/cancels) and resource (draft or un-sent post) and draws an explicit boundary: published posts cannot be deleted here. An agent can distinguish this from delete_campaign or cancel_campaign_posts without opening a 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?

Explicitly names the applicable cases (draft, or cancelled before it goes out) and the exclusion (already-published posts). It does not point to an alternative tool for the published-post case, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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