Delete Edit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that discarding a draft is safe, not gated by permissions, and that staged changes take no effect—useful behavioral context beyond the bare operation. It could add more about idempotency or error cases, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 extremely efficient: the first sentence states the action, the second provides the safety/permission rationale. Every line earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description plus schema fully covers what an agent needs to know. It explains the effect, the permission context, and the use case, leaving no material gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both edit_id and package_name are already documented. The description does not add new parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 and resource: 'Discard an open edit', which clearly states the tool's action. It further distinguishes itself by clarifying that nothing staged in the edit takes effect, differentiating it from commit_edit and similar lifecycle tools.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: to clean up an open draft edit, and it explicitly says this is 'the safe direction'. It does not name sibling alternatives like commit_edit or validate_edit, but the context strongly implies the use case without ambiguity.

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