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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. It adds valuable context: 'Permanently delete' reinforces irreversibility, 'associated draft data' clarifies the scope, and 'both active and expired drafts' specifies allowed inputs. The description complements the annotations without redundancy.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, followed by the critical usage guideline. Highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the essential aspects: what it deletes, scope (active/expired), prerequisite (get_draft), and irreversibility. It could mention error handling or return values, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is adequately complete.

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 covers draftId with 100% coverage, describing it as 'Unique identifier of the draft to delete'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It reinforces the draft context but doesn't introduce new parameter details.

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 ('delete') and resource ('draft'), and clarifies it covers both active and expired drafts. Clearly distinguishes from sibling delete tools (delete_document, delete_file, delete_webhook) by specifying 'draft' and its associated data.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: always call get_draft first, show a summary, and ask for confirmation. This establishes the proper workflow and implies deletion is a user-initiated action after review. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the draft-specific context is clear.

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