Delete post

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the confirm gate and the required posts:write OAuth scope. It could go further on irreversibility or the consequences of 'Changes account state', which is vague.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no padding — the action, the required guard, and the auth scope in priority order. The opening sentence largely restates the title, which is the only minor redundancy.

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, non-idempotent operation, the definition covers the confirm guard and auth scope, which is the minimum an agent needs to call it safely. It omits what deletion actually removes (permanence, attached data, whether repeated calls error given idempotentHint=false), leaving a gap for an irreversible action.

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%, so account, confirm, post_id and publication_id are already documented in the schema; the description only echoes the confirm=true requirement. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete post'), which is unambiguous against create_post/update_post/get_post in the sibling list. It stops short of differentiating why one would pick this over, say, update_post to strip content, but the destructive intent is unmistakable.

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 implies the correct usage window via 'requires confirm=true for the user-requested action' and states an OAuth scope prerequisite, but never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives or what to do if confirm is omitted. Guidance is present but inferred rather than stated.

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