discard_tool_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavior (resets to last published state) and a failure condition. It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or reversibility, but for a simple discard operation the provided information is adequate.

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 sentences that efficiently communicate the action and a critical constraint. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the action, effect, and a failure case. It could mention what happens if called with no draft, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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% and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the single 'id' parameter. The description uses 'tool' but not the parameter name 'id'.

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 a specific verb 'discard' and identifies the resource 'uncommitted draft edits on a tool'. It distinguishes from sibling discard tools by specifying the tool context and including a clarifying failure condition about never being published.

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 clearly states the tool's action and includes an important condition (fails if never published). However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_tool or request_publish_tool.

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