discard_prompt_snippet_draft

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

With no annotations, the description effectively communicates the main behavior (reset to published state) and a key failure condition. It could mention more about idempotency or return value, but it's sufficient for a simple discard action.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the main action and effect.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a failure scenario. Missing details about response or reversibility, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 only parameter 'id' is described in schema as 'The prompt_snippet's id.' The description adds context by explaining what the tool does with that id and the overall effect, going beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action (discard uncommitted draft edits), the resource (prompt_snippet), and the effect (reset to last published state). It distinguishes from sibling discard tools by naming the specific resource and includes a failure condition.

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 implies usage when there are uncommitted draft edits and mentions failure if never published, but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., request_publish) or when not to use.

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