Unschedule Ghost posts

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds two non-obvious behaviors beyond the structured data: the mandatory confirmation flag and the guarantee that deployment is not triggered — both load-bearing for a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core effect is front-loaded and the precondition and side-effect constraint follow in descending priority.

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 values need not be described. For a destructive, non-idempotent, multi-item operation the description covers confirmation and the no-deploy guarantee, but leaves partial-failure behavior and the updated_at concurrency contract unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains user_confirmed (required, must be true) and 'exact current' implies the updated_at value is a concurrency token, but it never explains the posts array shape or why updated_at must match. This is partial compensation rather than full.

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+resource+effect: 'Return exact current scheduled posts to draft.' The word 'exact' hints at the optimistic-concurrency behavior, and it is clearly differentiated from sibling mutate-tools like schedule_posts, unpublish_posts and trigger_deploy. It stops short of naming the alternative it is not (e.g. unpublish_posts), which is why it isn't a 5.

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 a hard precondition ('Requires user_confirmed=true') and a negative scope ('never triggers deployment'), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to choose this over unpublish_posts or schedule_posts, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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