Delete forum post

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true. The description adds crucial behavioral details: the first call is non-destructive and returns a preview plus confirm_token, and only repeated calls with the token actually delete. This fully discloses the safety mechanism.

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: first sentence states the purpose, second sentence explains the critical safety behavior. No wasted words; efficient and front-loaded.

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 explains the two-step deletion process and return of confirm_token, which is essential for a destructive tool with a preview mechanism. However, it lacks details on the preview structure and error conditions, and with no output schema, some completeness is missing.

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 only 40% (post and guild have descriptions; reason, dry_run, confirm_token do not). The description does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. While it implies the dry_run pattern, it doesn't formally describe each parameter's meaning.

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 every reply in it.' This specifies the verb (delete), resource (forum post), and scope (and every reply), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_message or update_forum_post.

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 explicitly advises that it's 'Safe to call directly' and explains the two-step process: first call returns preview and confirm_token, second call with token deletes. This provides clear guidance on usage, though it doesn't contrast with other deletion tools.

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