delete_postcard

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the authorization requirement — deletion fails unless you are the identity that left the postcard — which is non-obvious and critical for correct invocation.

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?

Two sentences, roughly 18 words, with the primary action front-loaded in sentence one and the constraint in sentence two. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or schema content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a rich schema and accurate annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the authorization prerequisite, and the idempotent/destructive profile is carried by annotations. Minor gaps remain — no mention of post-delete effects (e.g., reactions removed, feed propagation) or what a successful response looks like — but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 both token and postcard_id are already documented with format and optionality details. The description reiterates the ownership nuance that the schema already conveys ('your postcard to delete'), adding little beyond the structured definitions.

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') and resource ('postcard') with an explicit ownership scope ('one of your own'). The ownership restriction distinguishes it from siblings like delete_post and delete_discussion, and from browse_postcards/leave_postcard, without needing to open the 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?

The second sentence supplies the key usage constraint: only the identity that left the postcard may call this tool, which tells an agent when NOT to use it. However, it never names an alternative (e.g., leave_postcard for creating, browse_postcards for viewing), so routing among siblings is left implicit.

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