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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the crucial boundary that destruction is limited to unreleased drafts, leaving released/superseded intact. It also discloses idempotency, which the annotations do not. This is exactly the extra context the annotations can't carry.

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?

Bilingual but tightly structured: scope, preservation guarantee, idempotency, each earning its sentence. No padding.

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 single-required-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers precondition, preservation of other states, and idempotency—everything needed to invoke safely.

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 coverage is 67%; the required versionId is documented in the schema and description maps to 'the draft version to discard'. The optional templateId pinning semantics are only in the schema. Description adds little beyond the schema baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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/verwerfen) and resource (draft version) with the precise precondition 'while it is still waiting for its release'. This distinguishes it from template_archive, template_release, and template_save in the sibling list.

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 scopes when the tool applies (only pending drafts) and when it does not (released and superseded versions stay untouchable). The 'harmless to call again' note tells the agent retry/idempotency behavior without further inference.

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