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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the deleted quote's slot is freed, the id is never reissued, and quotes with dependent states are refused with the dependent named. This meaningfully augments the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two dense sentences; the first states the action and eligibility, the second covers failure behavior and id policy. Every clause earns its place and the key usage condition is front-loaded.

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 destructive delete operation with no output schema, the description covers what can be deleted, what causes refusal, and the consequence of deletion. Nothing critical is missing 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 input schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage, including an example format. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameter semantics, though the note that the id is never reissued gives slight extra context about id behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a draft quote') with precise eligibility conditions. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like quote_decline and quote_update by focusing only on deletion of never-sent draft quotes.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: for draft quotes that were never sent, accepted, invoiced, or exported. It also explains when the tool will refuse and that a dependent will be named, which serves as a when-not signal, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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