Delete draft

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information beyond that: the deletion acts on the local draft file and leaves an already-published Spotify playlist intact, which prevents an agent from assuming a broader blast radius.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. Nothing is wasted.

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 whose annotations already carry the safety signal and which has no output schema, the description supplies the one thing that matters most: what is and is not destroyed. Missing detail on the draftId and on failure/reversibility keeps it short of full completeness.

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?

Only one parameter (draftId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The name is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no format, source, or retrieval hints (e.g. where a draftId comes from), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Delete a draft') and scopes it to 'from disk', which separates it from anything that would affect published artifacts. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the operation is unambiguous among the draft-management tools.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself; there is no statement of when to delete versus edit/export a draft, nor any preconditions (e.g. whether a draft must be unpublished). The single clause about the Spotify playlist not being touched gives partial scoping but is not framed as guidance.

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