delete_agent_draft_route

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them – nothing about what a draft is, whether deletion is permanent, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

The four-word description is efficiently front-loaded and wastes no space, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise – there is simply not enough content to be useful. Brevity here reflects omission, not discipline.

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, open-world delete operation with two required identifiers and no output schema, the description provides no consequential context – no explanation of scope, permanent effects, or relation to other agent-delete tools. Annotations cover safety but do not compensate for the missing task context.

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?

Both required parameters (agent_id, branch_id) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (delete + agent draft), but it is essentially the tool name restated and does not explain what an 'agent draft' is or how it differs from siblings like delete_agent_route, delete_agent_hold_audio_route, or delete_agent_test_folder_route. An agent can guess the action but cannot confidently distinguish it from the many other agent-delete variants.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Given the dense cluster of delete_*agent* siblings, the absence of any routing guidance is a notable gap.

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