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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding blast-radius context that annotations cannot express: 'The live store is not changed' tells the agent only the draft is affected. It stops short of saying whether the discarded draft is recoverable.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action first and the scoping caveat second; every word carries weight and there is no filler. It is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere, but nothing is wasted.

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 destructive, idempotent mutation, the description covers the action and the blast radius, and annotations carry the safety flags. However, it says nothing about irreversibility or recovery and leaves the required draft_id undocumented, so an agent still lacks some information needed to call it confidently.

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 50%: the store parameter is well documented in the schema, but draft_id has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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The description pairs a specific verb ('throw away') with the resource ('a draft or unpublished changes'), which clearly separates it from create_draft, edit_draft, list_drafts and preview_draft. The only ambiguity is 'unpublished changes', which slightly overlaps with stage_changes/request_undo, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over siblings like request_undo, delete_item or edit_draft, and no statement of prerequisites or consequences. The usage is only implied by the word 'throw away'.

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