delete_post

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds critical context: deletion is irreversible from the API's perspective, deleted posts return 404, never appear in SOFT_TRASHED listings, and the API cannot tell whether Blogger's UI can restore them. This goes well beyond the structured hints and does not contradict them.

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 compact and well-organsed: the core warning comes first, followed by useful operational nuance, then the sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding or repetition.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema, this covers the essential decision factors: human confirmation, irreversibility, observable 404/list behavior, and the safer alternative. Since an output schema exists, not describing return values is acceptable. No critical guidance is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does clarify the `permanent` parameter by explaining that `useTrash` is sent unless `permanent=True` and that the distinction has no observable API effect. `blog_id` and `post_id` are self-explanatory from their names, but value formats or edge-case behavior are not fully specified.

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 and resource: 'Delete a post.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does and later contrasts itself with `revert_post`, so an agent can distinguish irreversible deletion from a reversible unpublish.

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 explicitly says to confirm with a human before invoking, and directly names `revert_post` as the better alternative when the goal is to take a post off the public blog. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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