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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'No Meta write' (clarifies local-only discard despite destructive hint) and that the exact pd_confirm_* token from prepare is required. It doesn't state what happens to the draft afterward or whether it can be recovered, but the safety profile is largely covered by annotations plus the added context.

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 tight sentences with zero waste: first states the action and required token source, second provides alternative tool routing. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. For a destructive action, the description covers the critical requirement (exact token from prepare) and clarifies no external write occurs. Missing only minor details like draft state after denial or connection_context purpose, but overall complete enough.

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% with no descriptions for confirm_token or connection_context. The description compensates partially by specifying 'exact pd_confirm_* token from products_delivery_pause_prepare' for confirm_token, but provides no info on connection_context. Baseline 3 appropriate given partial compensation.

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') and names the exact token source (products_delivery_pause_prepare). Clearly distinguishes itself from sibling confirm/deny tools by scope.

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 the agent: use this for product-family pause drafts, use overview_update_deny for individual status/budget/bid drafts, and launch_deny for creation/copy drafts. No ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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