delete_draft

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered structurally. The phrase 'using its current revision' adds genuine behavioral context by implying optimistic-concurrency semantics, but the description never says what happens on a revision mismatch, whether deletion is recoverable, or that the operation is irreversible — gaps the agent would want filled for a destructive tool.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the core action leads. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but as a structural matter it is tight and front-loaded.

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 mutation with 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and two required params, the description omits concurrency failure behavior, recoverability, and any post-delete state. The annotations supply the safety hints, but the description does not complete the picture an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only gestures at the 'revision' parameter ('its current revision') without specifying that it must match the draft's current revision or what a mismatch produces. The draftId parameter gets no explanation at all beyond the name, leaving both required params thinly documented.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Delete a local draft', which is unambiguous against siblings like create_draft, get_draft, and update_draft. It adds the qualifier 'local draft' and the revision condition, but does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of prerequisites such as needing the latest revision fetched via get_draft, and no mention of alternatives. The only implied usage is that the draft must be local and have a revision.

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