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

Beyond destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses determinism (no AI generation), the inability to publish an emptied draft as a new plan, and the 409-on-stale behavior of source_stage. This gives the agent a clear safety and lifecycle picture.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by only high-value constraints and routing. There is no filler or repetition of the title/schema.

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 destructive draft-clearing tool, the description covers purpose, alternatives, side effects, publication limitation, and concurrency failure mode. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly and avoid destructive mistakes.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates for the key business parameter by explaining source_stage's optimistic-concurrency role and 409 outcome. It does not add prose for action/resource or request_id/idempotency_key, but those are standard or fixed by the schema, so the main parameter semantics are covered.

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?

Description opens with a specific, distinct action: clear every outcome from a draft and leave the section deliberately empty. It separates itself from clear_competencies/clear_job_skills and from confirm_outcomes/generate_outcomes by naming the section and noting deterministic no-AI behavior.

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?

Gives explicit conditions for choosing this tool: outcomes have no item-level delete, confirm_outcomes requires at least one outcome, and only this tool can record that the section was addressed and left empty. It also warns that an emptied draft cannot be published as a new plan and points to modify_active, so the agent knows when not to use this path.

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