social_delete

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies an irreversible mutation but says nothing about permissions, confirmation requirements, partial-failure behavior across networks, or what the response contains. Most critically, the presence of a dry_run parameter is never acknowledged, so the agent cannot learn from the description that a preview mode exists.

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 single clause is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is good. However, brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being earned concision, and the parenthetical aside adds ambiguity without adding information.

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 destructive, unannotated, no-output-schema tool with 0% parameter coverage, which is the case that most demands descriptive support. The definition omits the dry_run safety valve, network value expectations, and any failure-mode or irreversibility information, leaving the agent materially under-informed before an irreversible call.

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 all three parameters are undifferentiated bare names. The description identifies 'id' as the post/message identifier but gives no format, and '(network-dependent)' gestures at the network parameter without stating its accepted values. The dry_run flag is entirely unexplained, which is the most costly omission for a destructive tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a post/message') plus the identifying key ('by id'), so an agent knows exactly what operation it performs. No sibling is a delete operation, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, but the parenthetical '(network-dependent)' muddies the scope rather than sharpening it.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of when not to call it. The only contextual hint is '(network-dependent)', which signals variability but does not tell the agent under what conditions deletion is supported, nor how it relates to siblings like social_post or social_queue.

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