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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that the discard is irreversible, that it affects other managers' staged edits, that live content is untouched, that the operation is token-bound to the previewed set, and that tokens are single-use and short-lived. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a destructive mutation.

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 critical facts (permanent, irreversible, two-step) are front-loaded in caps, and the paragraph is dense with signal. It is a bit long and partly restates the schema's confirmationToken description, costing a point.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what the first call returns (a preview and a token) and what the confirm call does, plus the failure mode when the staged set changes. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine meaning by explaining the confirmationToken's two-step, single-use, expiring nature and that the second call must use the SAME arguments, plus that productId targets the beta project's staging area.

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 and resource: it permanently discards every staged task and step change and restores the staging area to live content. It also scopes the blast radius (affects changes staged by other managers) and contrasts with the live state, which makes it easy to tell apart from commitTaskChanges.

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?

It gives a clear, explicit protocol: call without confirmationToken first, show the preview to the user, then call again with the same arguments plus the token after approval. It also states a failure condition (staged set changed → re-preview). It never names the commitTaskChanges alternative explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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