aula_forum_delete_post

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

Annotations already declare `destructiveHint=true`, but the description adds essential context beyond them: deletion cannot be undone, it is gated on `borrar` in `acciones`, and deleting the first post removes the entire discussion. It also requires showing the user exactly what will happen and waiting for confirmation.

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 tightly written: destructive action and irreversibility are front-loaded, followed by the permission gate, cascade risk, and confirmation instruction. No sentence is filler or redundant.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: irreversibility, permission gating, cascading deletion of the whole discussion, and required user confirmation. Nothing critical to safe invocation 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 both `id` and `direccion` are fully documented with examples in the schema. The description adds only indirect scoping through 'publicación propia' and does not define parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Borra') and resource ('una publicación propia de un foro'), with the ownership scope making the operation distinct from creating or editing posts. The cascade note further clarifies exactly what kind of deletion this is.

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?

It states a clear precondition ('Solo se puede si tiene "borrar" en `acciones`') and mandates a confirmation workflow before calling, which tells the agent when the tool is allowed to be used. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as `aula_forum_edit_post`, so it stops short of a 5.

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