delete_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses permanence ('permanently'), which is a key behavioral trait beyond basic deletion. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., comments deletion), error handling, or confirmation steps. For a destructive tool, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Delete a post permanently') earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, complexity is moderate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or important behavioral nuances. For a permanent deletion tool among siblings like revert_post, more context on implications and usage is needed.

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 compensate. It doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—no explanation of what blogId/postId represent, their format, or how to obtain them. The baseline is 3 because the schema defines two required parameters clearly, but the description fails to enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a post'), specifying it's permanent. It distinguishes from siblings like revert_post (which might undo) and update_post (which modifies), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from other destructive operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing postId/blogId), exclusions (e.g., not for drafts vs. published posts), or when to choose delete over revert_post. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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