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 safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds the useful scoping fact that committed content survives, but never states that the discarded change is unrecoverable or what happens on a clean path.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with zero filler. Nothing in it could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive and idempotent profile, so the description need not explain returns. Still, for an irreversible discard operation, the description is thin on failure modes (nonexistent path, uncommitted vs staged mismatch) and recovery expectations.

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 both project_id and path are already documented in the schema, including the staged-change semantics of path. The description's "one ... file change" only loosely implies the single-path parameter and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the 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?

Uses a specific verb ("Drop") on a specific resource ("one uncommitted file change") and adds scope clarification ("keep the committed file"). It is clearly distinct from projects_changes_commit and projects_changes_list, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no comparison to projects_changes_commit, which is the natural alternative an agent must choose between. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the revert-style operation.

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