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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, which is confusing for an operation that mutates a pending action's state. The description resolves that ambiguity by asserting nothing is executed in Odoo and that a confirmation message is returned — genuinely additive context. It stops short of saying whether a discarded code can be recovered or what happens on an invalid/expired code.

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, each carrying distinct information: what is discarded, that no Odoo data is touched, and what is returned. The key guarantee (nothing executed) is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a single-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the definition covers action, side-effect boundary, and return type. The only gap is failure semantics for an invalid or already-discarded code, which an agent would want before calling blind.

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 100% and the schema already says 'Six-character pending-action code to discard'. The description's 'identified by its code' only restates this, adding no format, sourcing, or lifecycle detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 ('Discards') and resource ('the pending write identified by its code'), and the sentence 'Nothing is executed in Odoo' makes the contrast with odoo_confirm/odoo_execute unmistakable. An agent can tell this is the negative counterpart of confirm without reading either 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the 'abort' path, but the description never names odoo_confirm as the alternative or says 'use this when you want to abandon a staged write'. No explicit when/when-not, so 3 rather than 4-5.

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