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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: this is a soft delete, the whole listing is discarded, and the slug is freed for reuse. It also repeats and enforces the owner-only constraint. It stops short of describing recoverability or audit effects, but the provided details substantially exceed annotation-only guidance.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, scopes it to the user's own drafts, explains the effect, and lists exclusions with alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition beyond the helpful repeated emphasis on ownership.

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 destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, this description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: what it operates on, when it applies, when it does not apply, the side effect, and the owner restriction. No important context 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%, so the baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description reinforces that the agent must be a draft or needs-changes and your own, but this largely mirrors the schema's parameter description rather than adding new semantic information.

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?

The description names a specific verb (discard/delete), a specific resource (YOUR OWN draft listing), and the exact states a draft must be in (never submitted or needs-changes). It distinguishes itself from live-agent lifecycle tools by explicitly stating that published/in-review agents are not deletable here and naming rollback_version/bump_version as the relevant alternatives.

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?

The description gives both positive conditions (draft or needs-changes) and exclusion conditions (published or in-review), making it unambiguous when to use the tool. It explicitly routes live-agent work to findagent_rollback_version / findagent_bump_version and states the owner-only restriction.

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