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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: it describes the actual side effect (external HTTP DELETE or update request), platform-specific behavior (DEV.to soft-deletes via published=false; platforms lacking a delete API return success=false without error), and the non-idempotent 404 case. This is exactly the behavioral detail structured fields cannot convey.

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 core action, then side effects, then usage routing. Every clause carries distinct information — no filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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-value explanation is unnecessary; the description instead covers the risk profile an agent needs (soft delete, silent success=false, 404 on repeat). Complete for a destructive cross-platform 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 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions (channel slug, live_url format), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description references live_url via post_status but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Best-effort delete of a published post on the target platform') and immediately frames the scope as retracting a live post. An agent can distinguish it from post_publish, post_status, and post_schedule 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to retract a live post, use post_status first to obtain the live_url, and use post_publish to re-publish afterward. It names both the prerequisite and the reverse operation, leaving nothing to inference.

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