Permanently delete a social media post by providing its ID. This irreversible action removes the post from your accounts.
Permanently delete a post. Cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Post id (uuid) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the irreversible nature ('Cannot be undone'), which is critical, but it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., deleting associated comments, delivery history) or any authorization requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a moderate gap.
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 short sentences with zero redundant wording. The key action and irreversible consequence are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 operation with a single UUID parameter, the description covers the essential action and consequence. It does not mention return values, but no output schema exists to clarify that. It is adequate for most agents, though it could explicitly note that it is a hard delete with no confirmation dialog.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description and format. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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'), a resource ('post'), and an important qualifier ('permanently') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_post, which likely implies a reversible action. The phrase 'Cannot be undone' further reinforces the tool's identity as a hard delete.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies permanent deletion, it does not mention that cancel_post may be appropriate for reversible cancellations, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., 'use this only if the post is not scheduled'). This leaves the agent to infer the decision boundary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.