Discard changeset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that on-disk files are untouched, that reads revert to disk state, and that the RPG Maker editor must stay closed during edits. It stops short of stating what happens if no changeset is open or whether the dropped edits are unrecoverable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then the precondition. Every sentence adds distinct information with no waste.

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 a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, side effects, and the editor-closed precondition. Only the failure mode (no open changeset) and the irreversibility of the discard are left unaddressed.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed beyond there being an open changeset.

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?

Specific verb and resource: "Drop every edit staged by the open changeset" precisely names the action and its scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling undo_changeset or commit_changeset, which an agent would need to choose among.

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?

Referring to "the open changeset" implies begin_changeset must have run first and that the editor must be closed, which is useful context. But it never says when to discard versus undo (undo_changeset) or commit, leaving the most consequential choice to inference.

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