Delete a local draft

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint), the description discloses additional behavioral details: it removes copied photos, does not affect Leboncoin, and explains the rationale for force deletion (local record is the only trace linking to live ad). This adds valuable context that the annotations do not cover.

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?

The description is concise (two sentences) and well-structured, with bold for the key point. It front-loads the main action and then explains the exception. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 delete operation, the description covers the primary action, its scope, and the special condition for force. It lacks an explicit statement about the return value or irreversibility, but the destructiveHint covers the latter. Given the simplicity of the tool and no output schema, this is sufficient, though slightly more detail about success/error behavior would improve completeness.

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 50% (only `force` has a description). The description expands on `force` by explaining the reasoning behind needing it ('the local record is the only trace'), which goes beyond the schema's brief line. For `draftId`, it provides no additional meaning, but the name makes it clear. Given low coverage, this compensation is adequate.

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 verb ('Removes') and resource ('a local draft and its copied photos'), and explicitly distinguishes its scope from online content ('Does not touch anything on Leboncoin'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on other draft operations like get_draft, list_drafts, 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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the `force: true` flag (for published drafts or unknown publish states) and clarifies that it does not affect published ads. While it doesn't mention alternative tools directly, the condition for `force` serves as a usage guideline for edge cases.

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