nexus_discard_revision

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by stating the ownership authorization requirement and the success/error return shape. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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?

Single front-loaded sentence plus a compact Returns block. No redundant prose; version and ownership details are integrated succinctly.

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?

Schema, annotations, and output schema cover the mechanics and safety profile, and ownership is stated. However the description leaves the revision lifecycle ambiguous—particularly when to discard vs retract and whether discard is restricted to unpublished revisions—so an agent may mis-route to a sibling.

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 each property has a clear description, so the baseline applies. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, aside from tying collection_id to ownership.

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?

Description provides a specific verb 'Discard' and resource 'collection revision', and includes an ownership precondition. However it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like nexus_retract_revision or nexus_discard_collection, so it stops short of 5.

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 usage when an owning user wants to discard a revision, but gives no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternative routing to nexus_retract_revision/nexus_discard_collection. 'Must own the collection' is the only contextual precondition.

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