social_media_posting_delete_csv

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description 'Delete CSV' aligns with that without contradicting it. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as permanence, side effects, or any preconditions. With annotations present, the description's minimal wording is insufficient to convey the implications of the deletion, scoring low but not failing due to consistency.

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 extremely short (two words) and lacks any structure or elaboration. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification rather than efficient brevity. Important context is omitted, making the description feel incomplete rather than intentionally lean. The front-loading principle is not violated, but the content is so sparse it fails to be useful.

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?

This is a delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, but the description provides no explanation of what 'CSV' refers to in this social media posting context, what the 'id' identifies, or any consequences of the action. An agent would be left guessing about the purpose and implications, making the description wholly inadequate for safe or correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'id' and 'locationId' have descriptions in the schema. Per the rubric, high coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Thus a score of 3 is appropriate—it does not harm, but contributes nothing beyond the schema.

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 'Delete CSV' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'social_media_posting_delete_csv'. It states the verb and resource but does not clarify what the CSV represents in the context of social media posting, making it indistinguishable from merely reading the name. For an agent to understand what this tool is for, it needs to know that this deletes a CSV file used for bulk posting, but the description offers no such context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes tools like social_media_posting_delete_csv_post and social_media_posting_delete_post, but no mention is made of when to delete a CSV versus those other deletion tools. No prerequisites, conditions, or workflow steps are described, leaving the agent entirely without direction on appropriate usage.

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