delete_post_variants

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: this is a soft delete to Trash rather than a permanent purge, and the variant text remains retrievable via post history. That recoverability detail is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The most important fact, that variants go to Trash rather than being destroyed, leads the statement.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens to the affected data and that text survives in history. It omits any note on restoring trashed variants or partial-failure behavior, but the core action is adequately explained.

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 100%, so session, platform, and variants are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax, formats, or the enum values, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Move post variants to the macOS Trash'), so an agent knows exactly what is affected. It does not differentiate itself from the similarly-named sibling delete_variants, leaving the agent to infer the difference from parameter shapes.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent cannot tell from the text when this is preferred over delete_variants or trash_sessions, so it must infer the routing.

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