Delete a draft or cancel a post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is partially covered. The description adds state-dependent constraints — published posts cannot be removed from here and mid-publish posts are blocked until the run settles — which are useful behavioral facts not in the annotations. It stops short of saying whether this is a hard delete or a cancel-to-state, but the state gating is well disclosed.

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, all load-bearing: scope, exclusion, and the mid-publish edge case. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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, the description covers scope, exclusions, and the transitional-state caveat, while annotations carry the destructive/idempotency profile and no output schema is needed. Nothing an agent requires to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter (postId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail for the id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (delete/cancel) applied to a specific resource (draft or scheduled/failed/waiting post), and immediately draws the boundary that published posts are out of scope. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like update_post or publish_post without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (draft, scheduled, failed, waiting-to-be-posted) and when-not-to-use (published posts, which remain in Markaestro with the user; mid-publish posts must wait until the run settles). Both the positive and negative conditions are stated, plus the owning alternative.

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