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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the destructive nature, the safety narrowing ('empty', 'zero items'), and the dry-run escape hatch, but says nothing about required auth/permissions, reversibility, or what happens to non-empty drafts when review_submission_id is supplied.

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, front-loaded with the destructive action and its constraint, then the dry-run tip, then the ordering hint. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials for a destructive tool: what qualifies as an orphan, how to preview safely, and its place in the submit workflow. Minor gaps remain around permissions and what dry_run returns, but an agent can call it correctly.

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 75% and the schema itself documents dry_run, notification_message, and review_submission_id. The description restates the dry_run semantics and implicitly covers review_submission_id scope, but adds no meaning for the undocumented asc_app_id or for how notification_message interacts with dry_run.

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 (Delete) and a narrowly scoped resource (empty READY_FOR_REVIEW review submission drafts with zero items) for an app. An agent can distinguish this from sibling delete_* tools and from press_submit_for_review without opening the 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 instructs 'Use dry_run=true to list orphans only' and positions the tool as a precursor to press_submit_for_review ('Clears slots before...'). It gives clear context and sequencing but does not state when NOT to use it or name a direct alternative for orphan cleanup.

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