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 established. The description adds real value beyond that: irreversibility ('Cannot be undone') and a side effect not visible in annotations (draft credits refunded for paying accounts). It does not cover permissions or rate limits, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place: action, side effect, alternative, parameter sourcing, irreversibility. The destructive consequence and scope are front-loaded.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, alternative, parameter source, irreversibility, and a financial side effect. Only auth/prerequisite context is absent, which is a minor gap given the annotations.

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 description's sourcing note for batchId largely restates the schema's own 'From list_pending_drafts' text. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries parameter documentation.

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 (discard) with a precise scope (every draft still pending in the batch) and explicitly names the sibling discard_draft as the narrower alternative. An agent can distinguish it from approve_batch and discard_draft without opening 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?

Explicitly says when to use it versus the alternative ('Use discard_draft to drop just some') and where the batchId comes from ('list_pending_drafts'), so selection and sourcing are both covered.

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