Delete a post by id.

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 still adds genuine context beyond that: an explicit confirmation requirement, the upstream GraphQL operation it maps to, and the non-obvious rule that provider errors surface as failures even under HTTP 200.

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 opening repeats the title verbatim and carries a double-period typo, wasting the highest-value slot. The remaining sentences are information-dense but terse to the point of being cryptic ('Use upstream fields to bound data' is not self-explanatory).

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema and a 100%-covered input schema, the description supplies the destructive/confirmation framing and error-handling expectation an agent needs. It leaves the payload-vs-individual-fields selection entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given that coverage.

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% and each of the six parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the confirmation requirement already stated on the confirm parameter and adds nothing about fields, account, payload, or payload_file semantics.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a post by id') and names the underlying operation ('Current Buffer GraphQL deletePost'), which lets an agent distinguish it from delete_content_item and delete_post_template. The duplicate period and title restatement slightly blunt the opening, but the purpose 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?

The description implies when-to-use via 'Requires explicit confirmation' and the schema's 'Set true only when the user asked for exactly this action', but it never contrasts this tool with edit_post or delete_content_item, nor states prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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