Draft Orders Delete

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 dangerous nature of the call is established without the description. The description adds useful operational context (required OAuth scope and API version) but says nothing about what deletion destroys (line items? linked order?) or whether it is recoverable.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action, then endpoint, scope, and API version. The HTTP line partially restates the tool name but is cheap and informative; there is no filler text.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, endpoint, and authorization scope — enough to call it correctly. The main missing piece is consequence information (irreversibility, side effects on related records).

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, and schema description coverage is 100% ("Draft order ID"), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about the ID's format or accepted types beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a single well-documented param.

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 order") that is unambiguous against siblings like draft_orders_get, draft_orders_update, and draft_orders_confirm. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the verb alone makes selection clear.

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 implied by the destructive verb, and the description supplies a real prerequisite by naming the required scope (write_draft_orders). It gives no when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as draft_orders_confirm or status changes, and no warning about irreversibility.

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