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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the crucial context that this call is a draft, that the eventual deletion cannot be undone, and that a human approval step is mandatory. That is real behavioral value beyond the structured fields.

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 action, then the irreversibility caveat, then the required follow-up workflow. 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?

With no output schema, the description fills the gap by telling the agent what comes back ('the draft this returns') and what to do with it. Nothing needed to call this 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?

The schema is a bare string with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate; it does by specifying that the id comes from my_photos. That resolves provenance, though it does not state the id format or what happens on an unknown id.

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 and resource ('Draft deleting one photo from the listing') and pins the identifier source to the sibling tool my_photos, which cleanly separates it from propose_photo and the other propose_* tools.

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 sequencing: draft first, show the owner the returned draft verbatim, then publish via publish_change only after approval. It also states the when-not ('nothing on Google changes'), giving the agent a complete workflow decision path.

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