Sdk Edit Discard

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating that a destructive switch and confirm=true are required, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It still does not explain the generation guard mechanism or what happens on mismatch.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the operation and appends the required safety conditions. No wasted 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?

For a destructive SDK edit tool with 0% schema coverage and an output schema present, the description is only partially complete. It covers the action and confirm requirement but leaves key parameters and the generation/lease semantics unexplained, which matters for safe invocation.

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 0% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It mentions confirm=true but omits confirm_discard_all, sdk_session_ref, and expected_edit_generation entirely, leaving two required parameters and one safety switch undocumented.

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+resource: 'discard all pending data edits in the current project'. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like arcgis_pro_sdk_edit_save, arcgis_pro_sdk_edit_undo, and arcgis_pro_sdk_edit_redo, though it does not name them 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?

Usage is implied by the destructive nature and the mention of required switches, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance is provided. It does not say to prefer undo/redo for narrower rollback or when discard is the right choice over save.

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