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

Annotations already flag destructive and idempotent, but the description adds the important nuance that this is a soft delete: the draft moves to Deleted posts in the planner and is user-restorable for 30 days. It also discloses scope guards (social networks untouched, clips and source videos never deleted, scheduled/posted refused) and that the call is free.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition and user phrasings, then prerequisites, then exclusions, then cost — a logical order with no filler sentences. The inline quoting of sample utterances and the 'post_id comes from...' fragment break the prose flow slightly but each element carries routing value.

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 one-param tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers everything an agent needs: trigger, parameter source, side effects, reversibility window, and refusal cases. Return values need not be described because the output schema exists.

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 carries the burden, and it does add real provenance: post_id must come from get_post_stats with status 'draft'. It does not specify the ID's format or behavior when an unknown/invalid ID is passed, which is a minor remaining gap for a single-param tool.

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 and resource ('remove a draft post') plus concrete user phrasings ('scrap that draft', 'delete the TikTok draft'), so the agent can match intent immediately. It is clearly distinguishable from update_draft, draft_post, and show_drafts.

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 explicit positive triggers via example utterances and an explicit 'Not for:' list covering scheduled/posted posts (refused), social networks, clips/source videos, and editing (routed to update_draft). It also names the upstream sibling (get_post_stats with status 'draft') that supplies the ID, which is a real prerequisite.

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