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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive write. The description adds valuable context: 'No Meta write' clarifies that the operation is local and does not affect Meta, and it specifies the exact token source (products_delivery_pause_prepare). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action and token requirement are front-loaded, and the alternative routing is in the 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?

The tool has one required parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers the action, the token source, and the distinction from siblings. It doesn't describe the output, but the output schema exists, so that's not required. The only minor gap is not stating what happens if the token is invalid or already used, but that's not essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it names the parameter's semantic role ('exact pd_confirm_* token from products_delivery_pause_prepare') and its source. However, it doesn't explain the token's format or what happens if the token is invalid, but for a single-parameter tool with a clear source, this is sufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Discard a product-family pause draft'), the specific resource ('product-family pause draft'), and the required token ('exact pd_confirm_* token from products_delivery_pause_prepare'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming alternatives (overview_update_deny and launch_deny) and their respective use cases.

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 this tool: to discard a product-family pause draft using the token from products_delivery_pause_prepare. It also provides clear exclusions: 'Use overview_update_deny for individual status/budget/bid drafts and launch_deny for creation/copy drafts.' This is explicit routing guidance with alternatives.

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