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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful clarification that destruction is scoped to the draft and "the live version stays as it is", which prevents an agent from over-reading destructiveHint as deleting the journey. It does not say whether the discard is reversible or what happens when no draft exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint in the second clause; no filler, no repetition of the title.

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, no-output-schema tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, the description covers what is dropped and what survives. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and the no-draft case, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ("Journey id from list_journeys"), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format, sourcing, or edge-case detail beyond it; 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States a specific verb ("drops") and resource ("the unpublished draft of a journey"), and immediately bounds the scope so it cannot be confused with delete_journey or restore_journey. An agent can distinguish it from the many journey siblings without opening a 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?

Usage is implied by "unpublished draft" – call it when you want to throw away pending edits while keeping the live journey – but no alternative is named (delete_journey, publish_journey, update_journey) and no precondition is stated. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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