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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive but idempotent operation. The description adds the meaning of the reason values, which is useful context beyond annotations, but doesn't disclose effects like whether associated media is removed or if the operation is reversible.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Take your post down') and efficiently specifies the reason parameter. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the reason parameter well but lacks details on the expected behavior for invalid tokens, non-existent posts, or whether the operation is reversible. It's adequate but not complete for a destructive tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'reason' enum values, which is helpful, but it doesn't explain 'post_id' or 'owner_token' beyond their names. However, these are relatively self-explanatory, so the description provides moderate added value.

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 clearly states the action (take a post down) and the resource (a post), and adds useful context about the two reason values. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'post' and 'get_post' by the intent to remove, though it doesn't name a specific alternative for similar operations.

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 explains when to use it (for taking down a post) and briefly hints at the reason choices, but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with alternatives like 'remove_media' or 'report_post'. It's adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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