moltbook_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. It states the action ('Delete') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires confirmation, has rate limits, or what permissions are needed beyond 'your own'. The mention of 'Success or error message' hints at output but is vague. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized with a clear main sentence and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the sections clarify input and output. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating key details into the opening, but it's efficient with zero waste.

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?

Given the complexity (a deletion tool with mutation), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like behavioral consequences (e.g., permanence), error conditions, or output specifics beyond 'message'. For such a tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that 'post_id' is a 'UUID' and relates to 'your own post', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and constraints. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules. Baseline would be 3 if schema coverage were high, but here it's above baseline.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('your own post'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'moltbook_create_post' or 'moltbook_get_post' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical alternatives like 'delete_any_post' or 'archive_post', keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 implies usage context with 'your own post', suggesting it's for personal posts rather than others'. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., no mention of whether it's irreversible or if there are restrictions beyond ownership). No clear exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so it's only implied.

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