Delete a post

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by revealing the delete is *soft*, what actually changes (content stops being served, the slug is released for reuse), and the authorization grant required. Those are the exact behavioral facts an agent needs before calling a destructive 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, ordered by importance: effect, then confirmation requirement, then permission prerequisite. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the important missing context (soft delete, effects, grant). It does not mention reversibility/restore paths or error conditions, but nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 both parameters (id, projectId) are documented in the schema, including the prj_ prefix and the CMSKITE_PROJECT_ID default. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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 and resource ("Soft-deletes a post") and immediately qualifies the semantics with the observable consequences: it stops being served and its slug is freed. That nuance is exactly what separates this from a hard delete, so an agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives a clear precondition ("Requires the content.delete grant") and a workflow instruction ("Confirm with the person first"), which is real when-to-use guidance for a destructive operation. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when deletion is inappropriate (e.g. prefer update_post for edits), so it isn't fully 5-level.

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