resolve_duplicate_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the main outcomes—trashing, deleting, or downgrading—which is meaningful. However, it does not disclose that delete may be permanent, how confirm_permanent_delete factors in, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediate action categories. There is no wasted phrasing or filler that could dilute the instruction.

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?

This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters with zero schema descriptions. The description does not provide enough context for an agent to correctly construct the call, especially around which IDs are canonical vs duplicates and when confirmation is required. It is minimally functional but lacks important operational detail.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It mentions 'duplicate posts' and the general action categories, but never explains canonical_post_id, duplicate_post_ids, or confirm_permanent_delete. The enum actions are partly reflected in the description, but the essential distinction between canonical and duplicate IDs is left implicit.

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 uses a specific verb 'clean up' and a clear resource 'duplicate posts', then names the exact actions: trashing, deleting, or downgrading. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_posts or get_post, which are lookup-oriented rather than resolution-oriented.

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?

No guidance is given about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Explicitly' implies it should be used after duplicates are already identified, but it never states that prerequisites, nor does it name alternatives such as find_posts for detection. An agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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