discard_edits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire behavioral burden. 'Throw away' does signal data loss, but it omits that the operation is irreversible, whether an edit session must be active, and whether confirmation/permissions are required for a destructive 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?

A single four-word sentence that is front-loaded and free of padding. It is arguably too terse for a destructive operation, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive, annotation-free tool the description leaves key behavior (irreversibility, edit-session prerequisite, alternative save_edits) unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema is fully covered by definition.

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 verb-plus-resource phrasing ('Throw away pending edits') clearly states the operation and is easy to distinguish from the sibling save_edits. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling or the state it operates on, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 versus save_edits, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active edit session or an open workspace. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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