delete_drawing

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond it: the deletion is permanent and cannot be recovered via Trash. It still omits prerequisites such as required permissions or what happens to elements/collection memberships belonging to the drawing.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the destructive action is stated first and the recovery caveat immediately follows.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and destructiveHint already declared, the description covers the essential irreversible-deletion behavior. Minor gaps remain around auth requirements and side effects on related entities.

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?

There is one parameter, drawingId, at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema only supplies type and minLength. The description says nothing about the ID's format or provenance, but the name is self-explanatory for a delete-by-id tool.

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 specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a drawing') and clarifies the scope of the deletion as irreversible rather than a soft delete. It doesn't name any sibling, but deletion is unambiguous against siblings like create_drawing, rename_drawing, or list_drawings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative (e.g., moving to a collection/trash) is named. The 'not a move to Trash' line is a behavioral caveat about permanence, not routing advice.

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