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

Adds substantial value beyond annotations (which already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint): it discloses exactly what is destroyed by default (record only, live post and tg messages persist), what remote=true changes, that unsupported platforms silently ignore remote, that a platform refusal deletes nothing, and that in-flight posts cannot be deleted.

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 [write] prefix and WARNING are front-loaded, and every sentence conveys a distinct, decision-relevant fact. It is dense and somewhat long as a single paragraph, but no sentence is wasted.

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 4-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description supplies everything an agent needs: parameter meanings, default vs remote behavior, platform limitations, and failure semantics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates platform values (ig|fb|tw|tt|yt|li|th|tg), defines post_id as <platform>_post_id, offers post_uuid as an alternative, and explains remote's semantics and platform restrictions.

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) applied to a specific resource (a post from selieeai), and immediately clarifies scope: by default only the selieeai record is removed, not the live platform post. This distinguishes it cleanly from the many other delete_* siblings operating on different resources.

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 describes the two modes of use (default record-only vs remote=true for live deletion) and the conditions under which remote applies (only fb|tw|yt, ignored elsewhere; refused deletes function as no-op). It does not reference sibling tools for alternatives, but the when-to-use-remote guidance is clear and complete.

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