discard_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool discards a draft snapshot without affecting the live workflow, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., if no draft exists), or side effects (e.g., whether the discard is irreversible), leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clarifying the purpose, usage, and effect (live config unchanged). However, it omits details on return values or error handling, which could be important for an agent invoking it. The high schema coverage helps compensate, but some behavioral aspects remain uncovered.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workflowId' documented as 'The workflow ID'. The description does not add further parameter details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. With only one parameter, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema sufficiently explains it.

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 specific action ('Discard the draft snapshot') and resource ('for a live workflow'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_snapshot' (which likely removes a saved snapshot) and 'promote_draft' (which applies draft changes). It explicitly mentions that the live pipeline config remains unchanged, which clarifies the scope of the operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this to abandon draft changes and go back to the current live version.' This directly contrasts with alternatives like 'promote_draft' (which would apply draft changes) or 'update_workflow' (which might modify the live version), offering clear context for selection.

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