privacy_security_draft_delete

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds value by clarifying that only the draft is deleted and the published version is unaffected. This context goes beyond what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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 a single sentence that clearly states the action and impact, followed by a link to the spec. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, and annotations cover destructiveness. However, the description lacks any explanation of the productId parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the description could mention expected return behavior. Overall, adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the only parameter (productId), the description must explain its meaning and usage. It does not mention productId at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide.

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 tool deletes the draft privacy-and-security info, distinguishing it from the published version. The verb 'delete' and resource 'draft privacy-and-security info' are specific, and it differentiates from siblings like privacy_security_get and privacy_security_draft_put.

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 implies when to use (to delete a draft) and contrasts with the published version, but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use or alternatives. The link to the spec may offer more, but in the description itself guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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