Delete a feed post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement (own post or admin/owner, else backend rejects) and the default oase_id behavior. It does not mention irreversible deletion or cascading effects, but these are generally implied by 'delete'. The disclosed rejection condition is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes necessary details (post_id source, oase_id default, permission constraint) without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 delete tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to identify the target, default oase behavior, and permission constraints. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the description adds extra meaning: how to obtain post_id (from send_post/read_posts) and the default behavior for oase_id. This enhances the agent's understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), the resource ('a post (opslag)'), and the context ('from an oase's feed'). It also names the source of the post_id (send_post or read_posts output), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_message (messages vs posts) and update_post (modification vs deletion). Nothing is vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a post_id (from send_post/read_posts) and you either own the post or are an oase admin/owner, otherwise the backend rejects it. It also explains the default behavior for oase_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions for deletion are unambiguous, and the purpose is distinct from siblings like update_post.

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