Delete a status

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

Although destructiveHint and readOnlyHint already flag mutation, the description adds irreversible consequences and exactly what is lost: boosts, replies, and favourites. It also states the explicit confirmation requirement, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences are front-loaded with purpose, then side effects, alternative, and confirmation requirement. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, so every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what the id must refer to, the irreversible side effects, the preferred alternative, and the required confirm flag. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and safely.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, `id` lacks a schema description, and the description fills part of that gap by saying the target must be one of the caller's own statuses. `account` and `confirm` are already well documented in the schema, so the description only needs to reinforce rather than re-explain them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one of your own statuses.' It clearly scopes the operation to the caller's own statuses and distinguishes the tool from edit_status, the main sibling that could be confused with it.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative for the common use case: 'To fix a mistake, prefer edit_status, which keeps all of that.' This tells an agent when not to use delete_status and which sibling to call instead.

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