threads_delete_post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond: it discloses the permission requirement, the success criterion ('only after Meta acknowledges the exact deleted_id'), and the failure-mode protocol for timeout/cancellation/unknown outcomes. The warning that absence from one page of posts does not prove deletion is a non-obvious behavioral trait an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then layered constraints in short clauses. Every line conveys distinct operational information — permission, ID form, retry policy, verification protocol — with no restatement of the name 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 destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the risky parts an agent actually needs: authorization, identifier selection, success semantics, and post-failure verification. Return-value detail is correctly delegated to the output schema rather than duplicated.

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 0% and both parameters are bare $refs to a numeric ThreadsID pattern, so the description must carry the load. It does for post_id by ruling out container IDs, URLs and shortcodes, which is high-value disambiguation. It leaves account_id largely implicit beyond 'the account', so a small gap remains.

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 ('Delete an own post') plus the precondition ('after explicit approval of the account and post ID'). No sibling tool deletes posts, and the 'own post' scope separates it from moderation/listing tools in the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly names the required permission (threads_delete), the correct identifier form to use versus the wrong ones (container ID, URL, shortcode), a negative usage rule ('do not delete posts merely to test permissions') and a retry prohibition. This is when-to-use plus when-not-to-use plus alternatives, all stated directly.

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