deletePost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive, irreversible mutation, but fails to specify critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or recoverable, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by directly supporting the tool's purpose without 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), side effects, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion operations and the absence of structured behavioral data, this description falls short of providing adequate guidance.

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 minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single 'id' parameter. It mentions 'by ID,' aligning with the schema's description, but doesn't provide additional context like ID format examples or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Delete') and the target resource ('a post by ID'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'unlikePost' or 'removeBookmark' by focusing on permanent deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from destructive siblings like 'deleteRetweet' beyond the resource type, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing post ownership or admin rights), exclusions (e.g., not for retweets), or related tools like 'hideReply' for non-destructive actions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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