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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: immediate deletion of the draft text, unchanged live template, 90-day audit record, author notification in-app and by email, optional note shown to the author, irreversibility, and a confirmation preview. These details are exactly what an agent needs to understand the destructive and social consequences of invoking the tool.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action and its consequences. Most details earn their place for a destructive tool, though the single long paragraph could be structured more clearly for faster scanning.

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, non-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential context: effects on draft and live template, retention, authorization rules, notification behavior, confirmation flow, draftId fallback, and return value. Nothing critical is missing for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter. The description reinforces the optional note's 500-character limit and visibility to the author, and explains the draftId fallback behavior, but this largely repeats schema-provided information rather than adding new parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: discarding an email template draft, and clarifies that only the draft text is deleted while the live template is unchanged. It is clear enough to distinguish from neighboring template tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as publish_email_template_draft or the generic discard_draft.

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?

It explains who may discard a draft (its author or anyone who may publish the template) and how draftId is defaulted, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly compare this operation with alternatives like publishing, deleting, or archiving a template, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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