Delete forum post

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the two-step confirmation flow where the first call is non-destructive and returns a preview and confirm_token, and the second call with the token actually deletes. This goes well beyond annotations and clarifies exactly how the destructive action is gated.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety mechanism. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior and the confirmation flow, but it omits the dry_run parameter's effect and whether confirm_token expires. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the preview contents would complete the picture.

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 40%, so the description must compensate for undocumented params. It explains confirm_token's role, but does not clarify dry_run, reason, or guild behavior beyond the schema. The description adds value on confirm_token but leaves param interactions incomplete.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete a forum post') and its scope ('and every reply in it'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_message or delete_thread. The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies this is the tool for removing a forum post and all replies, and the 'Safe to call directly' note guides usage expectations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context from the scope is sufficient.

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