fc delete feed

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the destructive and non-idempotent nature is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it warns about secondary effects on other people via hooks/announcements/automations and explicitly states 'No retries', which is a non-obvious behavioral constraint. This is meaningful additional 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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, the inclusion of controller class and route source file paths is implementation detail that doesn't help an agent decide or invoke the tool correctly, adding clutter without utility.

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 destructive nature and no output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects: confirmation requirement, side effects on others, and no retries. It doesn't explain what happens to associated comments or data, but for a delete operation with annotations declaring destructiveness, this is largely sufficient.

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 the baseline is 3. The description doesn't explain parameters further, but the schema already documents all three parameters (account, confirm, feed_id) clearly. The description's note about 'explicit local confirmation' reinforces the 'confirm' parameter's intent, adding slight value beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: deletes a post from the community. Distinguishes it from sibling fc_delete_comment and fc_update_feed by naming the resource. However, it uses 'post' while the tool and siblings use 'feed', a minor naming inconsistency that slightly reduces precision.

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 mentions that explicit local confirmation is required and that hooks/announcements/automations may affect others, which implies caution. But it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name related tools like fc_update_feed or fc_list_feeds. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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