delete_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates the destructive action ('delete') and scope (all statuses), but does not disclose irreversibility, side effects on linked resources, or permission requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a deletion tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter delete operation, the description covers purpose and scope. However, it omits a warning about permanence or a distinction from cancel_post. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but has clear room for improvement.

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% (postId described as 'Post ID to delete'). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already sufficiently documents the single parameter, 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 states a clear verb ('Cancel and delete') and resource ('a post'), and adds valuable scope distinction by specifying 'regardless of its current status (draft, scheduled, or posted)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_post, which likely only handles scheduled 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?

The description implies when to use it (for any post status) but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. Since a sibling cancel_post exists, direct comparison would strengthen guidance, but the 'regardless of status' phrase offers reasonable context.

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