discard_diagnostic_fix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully clarifies that the object is an ephemeral in-memory preview held in server storage, so discarding it is not a data-loss operation — consistent with destructiveHint=false. It does not state what happens on an expired or unknown transactionId.

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 resource come first and the scoping parameter follows. Efficient, though it stops short of adding the usage detail it could have carried in the same space.

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 no explanation, and the tool is simple with one required parameter. Still missing is any statement of the precondition (a live preview transaction from preview_diagnostic_fix) or behavior on an invalid/expired id.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing about transactionId. The description names it and ties it to the preview ('in-memory diagnostic fix preview by transactionId'), but gives no format, origin (presumably preview_diagnostic_fix), or validity semantics.

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 (discards) and resource (in-memory diagnostic fix preview), scoped by transactionId. It is distinguishable from preview_diagnostic_fix and apply_diagnostic_fix by naming convention, but the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

It never says when to call this versus preview_diagnostic_fix or apply_diagnostic_fix, nor that it is the cleanup step after a preview. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the phrase 'in-memory ... preview'.

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