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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is declared. The description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that the response distinguishes 'aborted' from 'leftover' items (partial success is possible) and that installed files are outside this tool's scope and require deleteAsset. It does not explain what 'leftover' means or whether retries are safe.

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 tight sentences: the destructive action and its scope come first, the return shape second, and the boundary condition third. No filler or restated title.

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, nested-parameter tool this is only partly sufficient. The description covers scope and the sibling boundary but leaves the two-level body/path argument shape and the meaning of 'aborted' vs 'leftover' in the response unexplained, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 reported as 0% and the description mentions no parameters except the 50-item cap, which merely restates the schema's maxItems. Inline schema text does describe key/uploadId/serverId, but the tool's prose does not compensate for the coverage gap or clarify the nested body/path structure an agent must build.

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 ('unfinished or inspected uploads') with a hard cap of 50, so the agent knows exactly what the call affects. It differentiates from deleteAsset by noting installed files are removed there instead, but never distinguishes itself from the sibling upload-abort tools (abortModpackUpload, abortWorldUpload).

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?

The phrase 'unfinished or inspected uploads' implies the tool belongs after startAssetUpload/inspectAssetUpload, and the deleteAsset pointer gives one routing rule. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what happens if uploads are already complete, and no disambiguation against the modpack/world abort siblings.

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