linkedin_delete_draft

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

Annotations already mark it destructive, and the description adds that it only affects the local store, not LinkedIn, providing scope beyond annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotation.

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 no redundant wording; each sentence conveys distinct information.

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 simple deletion tool with annotations and schema covering the confirm flag, the description adequately covers purpose and scope, though it could mention irreversibility directly.

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?

The schema already documents the confirm parameter with a clear description, but draftId has no description. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, and with 50% schema coverage, it's adequate but not enhanced.

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 tool deletes a local post draft and explicitly scopes it to the server's store, distinguishing it from LinkedIn-post deletion tools like linkedin_delete_post.

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?

It clarifies the local scope (not affecting LinkedIn), which implies usage for local drafts, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios like published posts, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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