changeset_discard

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key trait that the preview is immutable and that native CAD truth is unaffected, but it lacks details on idempotency, reversibility, or what happens to the preview token after discard.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the key qualifier about native CAD truth. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with only two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing preview) or what the response contains, and the parameter semantics are unclear. These gaps prevent full 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of what 'path' or 'preview_token' mean beyond the word 'preview'. It fails to connect these parameters to the tool's purpose, leaving the agent to guess how to fill them correctly.

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 uses the specific verb 'Discard' with the resource 'immutable preview', clearly stating the action and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like changeset_commit and command_preview by emphasizing that it discards, not commits or previews.

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 clear context that the tool is for discarding a preview while leaving the native CAD truth unchanged, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it stops short of full guidance.

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