x_post_delete

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

Beyond annotations that already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: deleting an already-deleted post returns success with `already_deleted: true` instead of an error. It also notes the tool is disabled under a `read-only` policy, which is useful runtime context. Nothing in the description contradicts the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the operation and scope. The added notes about standalone usage, already-deleted behavior, and policy disabling are useful context, though the id-format sentence repeats the schema. Overall it is efficient and well-structured with minimal waste.

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 one-parameter, destructive operation with a rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential information: what to delete, what inputs are accepted, ownership scope, already-deleted behavior, and policy gating. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and the schema already describes the `id` parameter as 'a numeric post id or a full status URL. Own posts only.' The description largely repeats this information without adding new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'delete own post by id', which clearly differentiates it from sibling read, create, and hide tools. The parenthetical 'X (Twitter)' and 'own post' scope add precise subject and ownership constraints. It is not a tautology or vague statement.

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?

The description clearly signals that this tool is for deleting a user's own post and accepts either a numeric id or status URL, giving an agent a clear context for use. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the purpose is specific enough that confusion with create/get/hide tools is unlikely. The policy-disabled note also tells the agent when the tool is unavailable.

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