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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real value by bounding the blast radius — only the draft version and its preview access are removed, the live workspace is untouched — but says nothing about irreversibility, required authorization (controlToken), or concurrency behavior (expectedRevision).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first and the scope caveat follows. Efficient, though it packs three distinct ideas (removal, preview access, live-workspace safety) tightly enough that slightly more structure could aid scanning.

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 tool with five required, undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description covers only the effect and its boundary. It omits preconditions (controlToken, expectedRevision), irreversibility, and error/permission behavior, leaving notable gaps an agent must guess at.

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% across 5 required parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies draftID/version semantics (“exact private draft version”) but leaves operationID, expectedRevision, and controlToken entirely unexplained — including the concurrency and authorization semantics that are critical for a destructive call.

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 (removes), a specific resource (a private draft version plus its preview access), and a scope boundary (“without changing the live workspace”) that implicitly separates it from publish_draft and update_draft. An agent can pick this over the other draft-lifecycle siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is the destructive entry in the draft lifecycle, but it never says when to choose it over update_draft (modify instead of remove) or publish_draft (promote instead of remove). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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