delete_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication but does not disclose that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or what effects it has (e.g., removing associated comments). For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it under-discloses.

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 one concise sentence that states the verb, resource, and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundant 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after deletion (e.g., success response, no content). It doesn't. The tool is simple, but the absence of return-value info and behavioral caveats makes it incomplete for an agent.

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 full coverage for the single 'id' parameter ('Post ID to delete'). The description adds no parameter syntax or format details, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'a post on Velog', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_post and write_post. The authentication note adds context. It fully specifies the tool's action.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The auth requirement provides some context, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over edit_post or other tools. Usage is only implied by the tool name and verb.

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