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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint=false annotations, the description discloses the exact eligibility boundary for deletion, that refusal names the dependent, that the free open-quote slot is returned, and that the id is never reissued. These are important operational details an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 three tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and follows with the eligibility constraint and refusal behavior, and each sentence contributes useful information.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, preconditions, refusal behavior, and downstream effects adequately. The annotations already carry the deletion risk profile, and the description fills in the operational constraints that matter for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage and already defines the single required id parameter with an example. The description does not add any further meaning about the id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a draft quote.' It narrows scope to quotes that were never sent, accepted, invoiced or exported, which distinguishes this operation from the adjacent quote_update and other quote lifecycle tools.

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 clearly states the conditions under which deletion is allowed and explains that a quote with dependents is refused. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as quote_update or quote_decline for quotes that cannot be deleted, so it falls short of explicit alternative routing.

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