delete_posts

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: a filter is mandatory so it can never wipe everything, published/processing posts are always excluded regardless of status, and the default mode is a dry run unless confirm:true. These are non-obvious safety guarantees an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations alone.

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?

Three sentences: purpose first, safety constraints second, required workflow last. No filler, and the most decision-critical information (dry-run default) appears before the schema is ever opened.

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 bulk mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what matches, what is protected, what happens without confirm, and the expected call sequence. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by framing filter params (ids/label/status/campaign) as a mandatory constraint and by clarifying that published/processing are excluded no matter what status is passed, which sharpens the documented default. It does not add syntax details beyond the schema, so it modestly exceeds baseline rather than fully replacing it.

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 plus scope: "Bulk-delete posts matching a filter — e.g. every draft in a campaign." The word "bulk" combined with the filter requirement makes it distinguishable from the singular delete_post sibling, and the example grounds what a match looks like.

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?

Gives an explicit operating procedure: "Always call once without confirm to see what matches, show the user, then confirm." That routes the agent through dry-run-first usage and away from one-shot deletion, which is exactly the when/how guidance this destructive tool needs.

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