grokbot_discard_draft

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that the target must be a 'pending' draft; it says nothing about irreversibility, permission/ownership requirements, error behavior, or whether the entry or session is affected. For a destructive mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and target come first. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two required parameters undocumented, the description leaves the agent guessing about what agent_id and entry_id must contain and what the tool returns. For a state-mutating tool this is not sufficient context to invoke confidently.

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 description coverage is only 33% (just session_id is documented; agent_id and entry_id are bare strings). The description's phrase 'for an entry' loosely gestures at entry_id but adds no format, type, or sourcing guidance to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('Discard') and resource ('a pending email or Slack draft for an entry'), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling grokbot_draft (create) or explain the 'entry' relationship, but the verb+resource pairing is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as grokbot_draft, nor any preconditions. The only implicit cue is the word 'pending', which hints the draft must still be open, but nothing tells the agent when discarding is appropriate or what happens if it is not pending.

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