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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by stating the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and by naming the blast radius ('the rest of the batch is unaffected').

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 sentences, each earning its place: what happens, what is not affected, and the irreversibility warning. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers action, scope, and permanence. Only minor omissions remain, such as behavior when the draft has already been sent or the id, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%; the single parameter is documented in the schema and points to list_pending_drafts as the source. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 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 resource ('throw away one draft') and immediately scopes it to a single item whose removal does not affect the batch. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling batch-level tools like approve_batch, skip_batch, and edit_draft.

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 — discard a draft you don't want sent — and the batch note hints at the batch-vs-single distinction, but no alternative is named explicitly (e.g. when to prefer edit_draft or skip_batch instead). Adequate but leaves the reader to infer the routing.

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