delete_post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds material behavior beyond them: irreversibility of posts and captions, the rule that a currently-publishing post is never deleted, that live takedown needs delete_mode=platform plus confirm_published=true, and that refusals keep the record. It also discloses platform authorization requirements (Threads requires threads_delete, YouTube requires youtube.force-ssl, 'upload alone is insufficient'), which is the kind of prerequisite an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 destructive warning and the two modes are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence carries operational content. It is dense and runs long, with some duplication of the schema's confirm/preview_id wording, but there is no filler prose.

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, multi-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the preview return value ('call without confirm to get a preview and preview_id'), the confirm loop, platform-specific authorization, and the edge cases (publishing post, published post with no live URL). An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining that group_id matches a caller-defined group_id, post_group_id, api_group_id, or release_id, and by spelling out the interaction between delete_mode and confirm_published. The only shortfall is that confirm/preview_id behavior is largely restated rather than extended.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete posts') and immediately splits the tool into its two operating modes (post_id single delete vs group_id bulk delete), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_post and update_post without opening any schema. Scope limits are stated explicitly, e.g. 'A group delete never removes published posts.'

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use procedure: fetch with `get_post` first, show caption/account/scheduled time, and pass confirm=true only after explicit confirmation with example phrases. It also names the preview-then-confirm flow for group deletes and an exclusion ('Never delete several posts one by one without listing each and confirming the full list').

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