ghost_delete_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes the operation is permanent, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any other relevant aspects such as authentication requirements, irreversibility (beyond 'permanently'), or implications of deleting a post (e.g., cascading effects). The description adds minimal value beyond the word 'permanently'.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the action and the target. There is no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the key information before any ambiguity, which is ideal for agent scanning.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description provides sufficient information: what it does (delete a post), the scope (permanent), and the mechanism (by ID). No output schema is needed for a delete that likely returns a success status. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could mention prerequisites like admin permissions, but that is not critical given the operation's clarity.

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 input schema already describes the sole parameter 'id' with a clear specification ('Post ID (24 hex characters) to delete'). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional semantic value for parameters. This meets the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and an explicit resource ('a post permanently from Ghost CMS by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling delete tools like ghost_delete_tag and ghost_delete_member by naming the resource type.

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 implicitly states when to use this tool—when you want to delete a post permanently. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the action is unambiguous and the sibling set makes the resource-specific purpose obvious. No exclusions are needed for such a direct operation.

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