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

Annotations already mark this destructive and idempotent, and the description adds real detail on top: the blast radius is limited to the draft ("nothing reaches the graph"), and it documents the `existed` result semantics, which matters because no output schema exists. It also explains the edge cases that produce existed=false (already published, abandoned, expired, or not yours), which is behavior no structured field conveys.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger conditions, then the return-value semantics. Every sentence carries new information; nothing restates the title or the annotations verbatim.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what gets deleted, that the graph is untouched, how to detect the no-op case, and where to find valid ids. The absence of an output schema is fully compensated by the inline `existed` explanation.

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 the single parameter is documented as the ed_… id from engramic_record_draft, so the schema does the work. The description mentions emotional context ("one of your waiting drafts") and implies ownership scoping, but adds no format or retrieval detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("abandon ... waiting drafts") and scopes it to drafts created via engramic_record_draft, which distinguishes it from engramic_record_publish and engramic_record_get_draft. An agent can pick it out from the sibling list without consulting any schema.

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?

It gives explicit trigger conditions: the user rejects a proposed record, or the agent drafted something by mistake, and it names engramic_record_get_draft as the way to enumerate candidates. What's missing is an explicit counter-case (e.g., 'use engramic_record_publish instead when the user accepts'), so it stops just short of a full when-to-use/when-not map.

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