Delete a post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so safety classification is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing blast radius (one id wipes every channel version in the group) and recommending user confirmation, which annotations cannot express. It does not add anything on reversibility beyond 'permanently', which the destructive hint already implies.

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 tight sentences, zero filler. The destructive scope is front-loaded, followed by the id semantics and then the safety prerequisite, which is the correct ordering for an irreversible operation.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: destructive scope, id resolution rule, and a pre-call verification step. Annotations carry the remaining safety and idempotency signals.

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% with a single well-described parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning the schema lacks: any post id in a group is acceptable and resolves to deletion of the whole group, which changes how an agent chooses which id to pass.

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 ('Permanently delete a post') and immediately clarifies the scope: a single id deletes an entire multi-channel group. This is materially more precise than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like postsider_pause_publishing or postsider_update_post_status.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite workflow - read the post first via postsider_get_post and confirm the channel versions with the user before calling. It names a sibling tool explicitly. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this (e.g., when pausing or status updates would suffice), which the sibling set suggests is relevant.

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