Cancel a staged action

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

The description says the tool 'Discard[s]' an action and that the token 'can never be used,' implying a permanent, state-changing effect, yet annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the description's side-effect profile, making the behavior dangerously unclear.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core action and consequence. Every word earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's single parameter, clear use case, and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for most scenarios. However, the contradiction between the description's irreversible effect and the read-only annotation creates a significant gap in overall comprehension.

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 100% and the lone parameter (confirmation_token) is already fully documented in the schema as 'Token of the staged action to discard.' The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond echoing the token concept, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discard') and a clear resource ('a staged write action'), explicitly stating the irreversible consequence ('so its token can never be used'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like confirm_action and list_pending_actions.

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 provides a clear use case ('Use this when the user rejects or changes a draft'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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