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

Annotations declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains this is a soft-delete that renames the row to a discarded tombstone, that the original slug is freed immediately, and that it is owner-only. This is exactly the behavior an agent must know before invoking a destructive tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and constraint, then the mechanism, then the exclusion. Zero filler; every sentence carries decision-relevant 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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the slug-reuse behavior, eligibility boundaries, and ownership requirement. Nothing needed 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already covers the slug/id format and the draft/needs-changes constraint, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of value by reinforcing the slug-reuse consequence and eligibility constraint, though it does not introduce new syntax beyond the schema.

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/soft-delete) and resource (your own draft listing), and explicitly distinguishes the scope from published/in-review agents. Names sibling tools (findagent_rollback_version / findagent_bump_version) as the alternatives for live agents, making it unambiguous relative to the crowded 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?

Explicit when-to-use (a draft you never submitted, or one sent back for changes) and when-not-to-use (published or in-review agents are NOT deletable here), with the correct alternative named. Eligibility is fully spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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