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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds information annotations cannot convey: the deletion bypasses the Bin and is irreversible. It does not cover failure modes (invalid or already-deleted id) or scope/permission requirements, keeping it just short of the top.

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, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded immediately after the action. Nothing repeats the structured fields.

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 irreversible delete with no output schema, the description supplies the essential facts: permanence and id provenance. Missing only a note on what happens when the id is unknown or the draft was already removed.

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% – the single draftId property has no description at all – so the description must compensate, and it does by specifying the id's origin (listDrafts) and implying it must be an existing draft identifier. It does not spell out the accepted id format, but a single required string keeps the ambiguity small.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Delete a draft") plus the crucial qualifier "for good," which separates it from soft-delete/trash behaviour elsewhere in the toolset. It also names listDrafts as the source of the identifier, so an agent can place the tool in a workflow 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?

"Take the id from listDrafts" gives explicit pre-call guidance on where the required identifier comes from. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g. when an editable draft should be updated instead), but for a narrowly scoped hard-delete that omission is minor.

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