discard

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specificity about what gets destroyed: the delegation's worktree and branch. This is useful context beyond the annotation, though it does not mention irreversibility or potential side effects in detail.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately communicates the key distinction from merging, making it 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?

While the tool is simple and the destructive annotation covers the main risk, the description leaves parameter semantics undocumented and provides no guidance on how to supply 'id' or 'repo_path'. For a destructive operation, more context about required inputs and effects would be expected.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, but it only indirectly suggests that 'id' identifies a delegation. It does not clarify 'repo_path' or confirm how the parameters are used, leaving the agent to guess about the second parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Throw away'), a specific resource ('a delegation's worktree and branch'), and a key constraint ('without merging'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'accept', which would merge the delegation's changes.

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 the tool is used when you want to discard a delegation's work rather than merge it, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'revise' or 'accept'. There is no direct guidance on when not to use it.

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