Api risk matrices discard draft create

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world. The description adds genuinely useful context that the committed json_definition is untouched, but says nothing about what is deleted, whether it errors when no draft exists, or what happens to a locked editing session.

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?

One short sentence with the key scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than too long.

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?

A mutation tool with no output schema and an undocumented identifier: the definition does not say which id to supply, whether the call is safe to retry, or what state the matrix ends in. The one clause about json_definition is not enough to call this correctly.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description never mentions it – not whether it is the risk matrix id, the draft id, or a revision id. For a low-coverage schema the description needs to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (discard) and object (editing_draft) plus the effect on a second field, which distinguishes it from publish/save draft siblings. However, 'editing_draft' and 'json_definition' are internal field names, so the reader must infer that a pending draft is thrown away and the published definition survives.

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 rather than ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_save_draft_partial_update or _publish_draft_create, and no stated precondition that an editing session must be in progress. The agent is left to infer the workflow position.

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