delete_procedure_draft_route

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note on irreversibility, permissions required, or what happens to the underlying procedure/branch state.

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?

It is a single short phrase with zero waste, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient conciseness—there is no front-loaded scope or constraint for an agent to act on.

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, three-parameter deletion route with no output schema, the description omits identifying which draft is deleted, what the branch/agent scoping implies, and any confirmation or irreversibility context. Annotations cover safety hints but the description leaves the call semantics thin.

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 100%, so all three required parameters (agent_id, branch_id, procedure_id) are documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Delete Procedure Draft' simply restates the tool name (delete_procedure_draft_route) without adding scope, target, or differentiating detail. It conveys verb+resource only through the name itself, which fits the tautology criterion rather than a clear, differentiated purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling delete tools (delete_agent_draft_route, remove_procedure_route, delete_agent_route, etc.) or versus update_procedure_draft_route. No prerequisites or context are stated.

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