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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two things the annotations do not: "for good" reinforces permanence, and "Needs the seller's sign-in" plus "Ask the seller first" disclose an authorization and human-confirmation requirement that is not encoded anywhere in the structured fields. It stops short of saying what happens to the draft record afterward or how failures surface.

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 and its permanence, then the confirmation and auth caveats. No filler and nothing repeated from annotations.

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 one-parameter, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers action, permanence, confirmation, and auth. The only meaningful gap is provenance of draft_id, which an agent must guess at since neither the schema nor the description explains it.

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 0%, so draft_id is documented nowhere; the description only implies it identifies "one of the seller's drafts" and gives no hint about its format (maxLength 64) or how to obtain it (e.g., from list_drafts). With a single required parameter the ambiguity is limited, but the description does not fully compensate for the empty schema documentation.

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?

"Discard one of the seller's drafts, for good" names a specific verb (discard) and a specific resource (a draft belonging to the seller), and "one of" makes the single-item scope explicit. It is clearly separable from sibling tools like list_drafts and save_draft without opening any 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?

"Ask the seller first" gives a confirmation precondition and "Needs the seller's sign-in" gives an auth precondition, which is real usage guidance. However, it never contrasts this with alternatives (e.g., versus save_draft or leaving the draft in place) or states when a draft should be discarded, so an agent still has to infer the selection context.

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