Delete a published Hashnode post

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: 'permanently delete', 'cannot be undone', and a warning. This goes beyond the structured data, clearly disclosing the irreversible destructive nature. It does not mention authentication or other behaviors, but for a simple delete tool this is sufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded with the essential action and warning. The Args list and warning are clearly structured, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and risks. No waste.

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?

Given the simple nature of the delete operation and the fact that the input schema fully documents parameters, the description is complete. It covers the action, irreversibility, required param, and optional response_format. No output schema is needed for a tool with such straightforward behavior.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description lists the parameters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly states the specific verb 'delete' and the resource 'published post', distinguishing it from sibling tools like update or get. The permanent nature is emphasized, clarifying the exact scope of the operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to permanently delete a published post. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use it or mention alternative tools for deletion vs. updating/drafting. The warning about irreversibility adds important contextual guidance.

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