delete_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the API endpoint, the delete action, the restriction to own content, and the confirm parameter for safety. It also describes return values, including a confirmation dictionary when not confirmed. This gives a transparent view of behavior.

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?

Description is organized with sections (overview, notes, Args, Returns). It is not overly verbose, though some redundancy exists. The structure helps readability, and every sentence adds 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?

Given the moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, restrictions, parameters, and return values. It provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains status_id as the ID of the status to delete and confirm as a secondary confirmation parameter. This adds some value, but the explanations are minimal and could benefit from examples or sources for the ID.

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?

Description clearly states the tool deletes fanfou statuses, and specifies the restriction to own content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_status or manage_favorite, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Description notes that only own content can be deleted, which is a usage constraint. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor does it mention prerequisites or alternatives. The confirm parameter is explained as a safety measure, which provides limited context.

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