velog_delete_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. '삭제합니다' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has rate limits. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), whether the action is reversible, or any side effects. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'post_id' clearly documented as '삭제할 포스트 ID' (post ID to delete). The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('삭제합니다' - deletes) and resource ('Velog 포스트' - Velog post), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like velog_update_post or velog_publish_post, which also operate on Velog posts but with different actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to own the post), when deletion is appropriate versus updating, or what happens after deletion. With siblings like velog_update_post and velog_publish_post available, this gap is significant.

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