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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real substance on top: exactly what is destroyed (draft plus uploaded screenshots), what survives (certification notes), and confirmation of no external effect ('Nothing is sent to Microsoft'). It stops short of saying whether the discard is recoverable.

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: the destructive action, the preserved artifact, and the absence of network side effects. The key consequence is front-loaded with 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 one-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, destruction scope, preservation, and external-effect behavior. The remaining gap is disambiguation from discard_update, which the description never addresses.

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?

There is a single appId parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a pointer to list_apps for obtaining it. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema already documents it fully.

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 and resource: it throws away the saved listing draft and its uploaded screenshots. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling discard_update, so an agent cannot tell which discard tool applies to which target from the text alone.

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 'so the next update keeps the live listing' hints at the situation the tool serves, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no exclusion or comparison against the near-identical sibling discard_update. The agent is left to infer which discard to call.

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