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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the draft-only restriction, which is not present in annotations or schema. However, it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as error handling or irreversibility, which are partially covered by the destructive hint. The added value is modest.

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 two short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional constraint is stated in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 delete operation with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is sufficient. It states the core constraint (draft-only) and the action. Missing details like response format or error behavior are not critical given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 100%, as both groupId and versionId have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the baseline rule, this warrants a 3.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a DRAFT version'), clearly stating the operation and its target. It also adds the constraint 'Only DRAFT versions can be deleted,' which differentiates it from other version-related tools like lexq_versions_update or lexq_versions_clone. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 statement 'Only DRAFT versions can be deleted' provides a clear condition for when to use this tool, implicitly telling the agent not to use it for non-draft versions. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the constraint itself is a strong usage guideline. It could be improved by naming specific alternatives, but it is not vague.

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