delete_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses that deletion is unrecoverable, that confirm=True is mandatory, that partial title matches are allowed, that multiple matches are rejected, and that an empty title only works when exactly one draft exists. These are non-obvious, safety-critical behaviors.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first front-loads the destructive action and mandatory confirmation; the second packs the title-matching rules efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is complete for a destructive tool with two parameters and an output schema. It covers irreversibility, confirmation, and title disambiguation. The reference to publish_draft for title rules is acceptable because that sibling tool provides the shared semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully documents both parameters: confirm must be true because the operation is irreversible, and title follows specific matching rules (partial match, multiple-match rejection, empty-title single-draft restriction). This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Deletes the draft post' (임시저장 글을 삭제한다), which clearly identifies the tool's action. The draft resource naturally distinguishes it from delete_post, but it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance about when to choose delete_draft over alternatives such as delete_post or publish_draft. The title rule reference to publish_draft is behavioral context, not usage guidance. The agent must infer when this tool is appropriate from the name alone.

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