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

Rich disclosure well beyond the annotations: the draft is hidden from everyone but uploads and history are retained for support restoration, cofounders get email and in-app notices, auth/active-access prerequisites are stated, and idempotency and canonicality behavior are addressed. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and adds real operational context.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, but the trailing canonicality/idempotency/confirmation-boundary boilerplate is templated and partly repeats the earlier confirmation instruction. It is longer than the concrete guidance requires.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, confirmation, downstream effects (retention, notices) and points to trusting actual_tool_output. Return-shape detail is absent but the tool explicitly delegates that to the returned payload.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains confirm: true and a stable requestId, which is valuable, but companyId is only implied via the 'Delete <company name>?' prompt and the nested _corply_context object is undocumented, leaving part of the parameter surface unaddressed.

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 with scope: 'Delete one of the founder's unfiled company drafts', plus the ownership restriction. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_company_drafts and start_company_draft without opening any 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (only the starter, and only before anything is paid, signed or filed) and a required two-step confirmation sequence. It does not name an alternative tool for the list/inspect case, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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