discard_workflow_draft

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (discarding draft, resetting to published state) and the failure case. Does not cover potential side effects like permission requirements or impact on pending approvals, but is adequate for a simple discard 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?

Exceptionally concise: two sentences with no fluff. The action and key constraint are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Lacks details on behavior when no uncommitted draft exists (if published state matches current). No output schema or return info. Given the complexity of workflow draft management, a bit more context (e.g., whether it succeeds silently) would be helpful.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional semantics about the parameter beyond what is already in 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?

Clearly states the action 'discard uncommitted draft edits' on a workflow, with the effect of resetting to last published state. Distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on draft management for workflows.

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?

Provides explicit condition ('Fails if it has never been published') which informs when not to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'request_publish_workflow' or other discard tools.

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