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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns extra credit by scoping that destruction: 'Nothing in the knowledge base changes' tells the agent the blast radius is limited to the proposal, not published content. It still does not say whether the discarded proposal can be recovered or re-proposed.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the consequence second. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers purpose and effect adequately. Missing only recoverability/reversibility detail, which an agent might want before executing a destructive discard.

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 both parameters already carry source hints ('proposal id from get_code_updates', 'Product id from list_products'). The description adds nothing about the parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb and object ('Discard one proposed article update'), which cleanly separates it from approve_code_update, edit_code_update, and decide_code_update_batch among the siblings. The only wrinkle is a terminology drift: the tool name says 'code update' while the description says 'article update', which forces a small inference that these are the same entity.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'discard' but never made explicit. There is no statement of when to discard versus approving, editing, or batching (approve_code_update, edit_code_update, decide_code_update_batch), and no prerequisites such as needing a valid proposal id from a prior listing.

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