discard_drafts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and reveals meaningful behavioral details: it only deletes pending_review rows, silently skips other statuses, returns the deleted count and skipped ids. It does not mention irreversible nature but 'delete' is explicit and the status-filtering and return-value disclosure is good.

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?

Three sentences: first states the action and both modes, second clarifies scope/exclusion, third states return values and preview workflow. Every sentence earns its place; no redundant filler.

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 deletion tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers invocation mode, scope, exclusions, return value, and preview alternative. Missing minor details like whether projectId matches exact prefix or exact name, but the critical operational facts are present.

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 coverage is 100% with both ids and projectId described, so baseline credit applies. The description adds that ids/projectId are 'mutually exclusive' (also in schema descriptions) and confirms the ids represent outreach log ids, matching the schema. It doesn't need to add syntax because the schema already covers both parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('batch-delete') with a clear resource ('pending_review drafts') and explicitly distinguishes two invocation modes (by ids or by projectId). It also differentiates from sibling delete tools like delete_project and delete_prospects by scoping to drafts, and even points to list_drafts for preview.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (batch-delete pending_review drafts) and describes exclusionary behavior ('only pending_review rows are deleted; any other status silently excluded'). The note 'Preview with list_drafts' gives a clear workflow and alternative for dry-running before deletion.

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