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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it does not delete published virtual dimensions, returns 'draftDiscarded: true' on success, and errors when no draft exists. This clarifies the exact scope of destruction and the outcome, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes necessary details (return value, error case, non-destructive scope, example) without fluff. It is slightly longer than the bare minimum but every sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized for a tool with multiple behavioral caveats.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, parameter mapping, success/error behavior, and scope. There is no output schema, but the return value is mentioned. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds crucial mapping: 'virtualDimensionId in inputs equals id from list/get/search.' The example also demonstrates how to fill the parameter, which is helpful beyond the schema's minLength constraint.

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 clearly states the action: 'Discard the pending draft for an existing virtual dimension without publishing.' The verb 'discard' and specific resource 'pending draft' are unambiguous, and 'without publishing' distinguishes it from the publish tool. This completely separates it from sibling tools like create/update/publish.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a draft is corrupt/unreadable or you want to abandon in-progress edits.' It also notes the error condition when no draft exists. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with update_virtual_dimension_draft or other alternatives, though the 'without publishing' phrase implies a contrast.

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