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

Adds a meaningful fact beyond annotations: 'No Meta write', clarifying that despite destructiveHint=true the discard is local and does not touch the Meta API. It also implies the token must come from a prior prepare step. It stops short of describing what happens to an expired/mismatched token or whether the token is single-use.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the token requirement, then the sibling routing. No redundant or filler text; every clause carries routing or semantic value.

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 deny tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: what it discards, which token to use and where it comes from, that no Meta write occurs, and which tools to prefer for other draft types.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter, and it mostly does: it names the format (pd_confirm_*), the source tool (products_delivery_pause_prepare), and the exactness requirement. It omits error/lifecycle behavior on an invalid or reused token.

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+resource: 'Discard a product-family pause draft'. This is clearly distinguishable from the confirm counterpart and from other deny tools, and an agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes between siblings: overview_update_deny for individual status/budget/bid drafts, launch_deny for creation/copy drafts, and this tool for product-family pause drafts. It also names the upstream producer (products_delivery_pause_prepare) whose token must be supplied.

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