Delete a draft

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: there is no undo, no trash recovery, and the tool refuses to run without confirm: true. This directly informs the agent about consequences and guardrails that annotations alone do not convey.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the action and consequence. There is no filler, and each sentence earns its place by communicating purpose, irreversibility, and the confirmation guard.

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 destructive action with three fully documented parameters, the description captures the essential context: what is deleted, that deletion is permanent, and that confirm must be true. No output schema exists, so return-value details are not required for this tool to be used correctly.

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 100%, so id, confirm, and publication are already fully documented in the input schema. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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The description states a specific verb ('delete'), a specific resource ('draft'), and a scope qualifier ('unpublished'), making it clear what the tool operates on. This distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like delete_note and from draft lifecycle tools such as publish_draft or update_draft.

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?

The description makes the use case clear: permanently deleting an unpublished draft. It also signals caution by emphasizing irreversibility and the confirm requirement. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like delete_note for notes, but the 'draft' scope is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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