Delete published draft from X

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive effect (deletes live posts) and the side effect on the local draft (marks as deleted). It also covers edge cases. It could mention irreversibility, but the key behaviors are transparently disclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by scope, edge cases, and constraints. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 destructive mutation tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when it applies, and the expected side effects. The lack of an output schema is acceptable as return values are not critical for a delete operation.

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% for the single parameter 'id' with description 'Draft id.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints, 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 primary action ('Delete every live post id recorded on a draft') and the secondary action ('mark the local draft as deleted'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also specifies the scope (root and thread replies) and distinguishes it from siblings like edit_published_draft and publish_draft.

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 on when the tool is appropriate, stating it works 'whenever live ids are recorded' and lists specific scenarios (published drafts, partial publishing failures, corrupt/legacy records). It also notes the limitation 'Own posts only.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the implied use case is clear.

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