delete_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it labels the operation a WRITE ACTION, states the confirmation gate, and ties it to the confirm parameter. It omits irreversibility, behavior when the status does not exist or is not owned, and rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the action and the safety gate front-loaded before the parameter requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essentials an agent needs to act safely: what is deleted, the ownership constraint, and the confirmation gate. Failure modes and reversibility are the only notable omissions.

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 explains the semantics of confirm ('Requires confirm=true') but says nothing about status_id format or where it comes from, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

Specific verb (Delete) plus resource (status) with a clear ownership scope ('one of the user's own statuses'), which separates it from get_status, post_status and favorite in the sibling list. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation: call only after the user has explicitly confirmed this exact action and content in chat. It does not name alternative tools or describe what to do when confirmation is absent, but the gating condition is unambiguous.

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