discard_flow_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the destructive nature (discarding edits), the reset behavior, and a clear failure condition (never published). It does not detail permissions or irreversibility but is sufficiently transparent for a simple operation.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately explains the fallback behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the behavior, prerequisites (must have been published), and failure case. It doesn't cover what happens if no drafts exist, but overall it is complete enough for the agent to use correctly.

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% (one parameter 'id' with description 'The flow's id.'). The description adds no additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('discard'), the resource ('uncommitted draft edits on a flow'), and the effect ('resetting it to its last published state'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming 'flow'.

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 tells when to use (when there are uncommitted draft edits) and when not to use (if never published, it fails). While it doesn't explicitly compare to other discard tools, the context of the tool name and sibling list implies it is specific to flows.

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