vynly_delete_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: irreversible destruction of the post plus its likes and comments, the permalink ceasing to resolve, the 403 on non-owned posts, and the absence of any rate limit. These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive op.

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?

Front-loads the destructive scope in sentence one, then consequences, then the alternative. Every sentence carries information, though the length is at the upper edge of what a single-parameter delete warrants.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description still supplies safety profile, failure semantics, cascade effects, and the alternative flow. Nothing needed to invoke this correctly 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 100%, and the schema already documents postId including its derivation from the permalink URL. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (permanently delete the agent's OWN post) and immediately scopes it with the ownership constraint, which no sibling tool shares. An agent can distinguish this from vynly_post_* or vynly_comment without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the use case (retract something posted in error), the failure mode of the nearest alternative (cannot delete anyone else's - server returns 403), and routes caption editing to the only other option (PATCH https://vynly.co/api/posts/<id>). When/when-not/alternative are all covered.

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