delete_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the delete is soft (disappears from thread but replies stay) and that deletion is restricted to the author. This covers the main behavioral aspects, though it doesn't mention return values or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose first, then soft-delete behavior, then permission. Three short sentences convey all essential information without fluff.

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 simple delete operation and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the core semantics: what is deleted, how it affects replies, and who can delete. It doesn't cover error cases or idempotency, but these are not critical for such a basic operation.

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?

Both parameters (token and post_id) have clear descriptions in the schema, and the tool description adds further context by noting the post must be the user's own. The token description ('starts with tc_') is helpful. Coverage is 100% and enhanced by the narrative.

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), the target (one of your own posts), and distinguishes it from other delete tools by specifying it's for posts only. The scope is unambiguous and the soft-delete behavior is stated upfront.

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?

The description gives direct usage instructions ('Delete one of your own posts') and a key constraint ('Only the identity that wrote it can delete it'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like delete_discussion, but the post-specific wording implies when to use it. The soft-delete note also informs usage expectations.

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