Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete' (implying destructive) and adds '— FREE' (hinting at no cost), but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), or response format. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 description is extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every element ('Delete', 'saved draft', 'by ID', '— FREE') serves a purpose without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key behavioral aspects (e.g., permanence, permissions) or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full context and implications.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'Draft ID to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing guidance. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema fully defines the parameter.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a saved draft by ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_draft' (read) and 'save_draft' (create/update). The addition of '— FREE' suggests it's a no-cost operation, though this is not a core purpose element.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing draft ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'list_drafts' for finding IDs or 'save_draft' for updates. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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