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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: permanence/irreversibility, the side-effect boundary (saved articles are not affected), and the confirm-token safety flow. The annotation merely flags destructiveHint=true; the description explains how destruction is gated and what survives.

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 purpose and irreversible scope before the procedural detail. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description already discloses what the first call returns (summary and confirmToken). For a destructive, two-step tool this covers everything an agent needs to invoke 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 67%; the description explains the confirmToken parameter's role (first call obtains it, second call proceeds) beyond the schema's terse wording, compensating for the undocumented draftId. site and draftId are largely left to 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 (permanently delete) and specific resource (Article Builder draft), and the note that saved articles are unaffected disambiguates it from the sibling delete_article. An agent can select it correctly 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?

Clearly instructs on the two-step invocation: first call returns summary+confirmToken, second call passes confirmToken. This is solid usage context, but it does not explicitly name when to prefer this over alternatives like delete_article or publish_draft.

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