delete_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the action is destructive, cannot be undone, and requires privileges, covering the most critical behavioral traits. It could mention side effects on related content, but the key safety information is present.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the additional warnings about destructiveness and permissions earn their place.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers all essential points: action, irreversibility, and privileges. It does not explain whether the entire thread is deleted or just the single post, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the information provided is largely sufficient.

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?

The schema already includes descriptions for both parameters (network_id and post_number), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: "Delete a Piazza post." It uniquely identifies this as a deletion tool among siblings, which all focus on creating, editing, or reading posts, so it stands out distinctly.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by warning that the action is irreversible and requires instructor/TA privileges. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the destructive warning and permission requirement effectively guide appropriate usage.

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